The US government has a budget of $12.8 billion, the lowest in the world, and it’s already getting its share of the pie.
Trump wants to slash food subsidies, limit the number of grain imports and, most controversially, eliminate federal support for the world food supply.
The idea is to put more emphasis on exports and the US is already doing a bit of both.
The White House released a list of 11 countries that the Trump administration wants to target, along with a brief list of which food groups and industries are in particular need of the cuts.
Agriculture, for example, is a big target, as the US imports more grain than any other country.
And it’s the biggest industry in the US, accounting for roughly 40% of all imports.
But the list of the top ten recipients of cuts is just a fraction of the total: US farmers are the biggest beneficiaries.
According to the USDA, the total agricultural budget for 2016 was $12,869 billion, but it’s not clear how much of that went to agricultural subsidies, or what percentage of it actually went to US farmers.
What’s clear is that the agricultural sector is on the list, and that the US has already begun its cutback efforts, with a new USDA report indicating that the USDA will take $1.1 billion in cuts from the US food sector.
So, how does this affect the global food supply?
The US is the world leader in agriculture, so the government’s efforts could have an impact on the global agricultural market, according to Paul Rieckhoff, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy and director of the Global Food Security Program at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
But this is largely speculative, as US farmers will be able to keep their crops and markets, according Riekhoff.
He argues that if the US continues to import grain, and if it also wants to buy corn, it will have to invest more in producing grain in the United States.
“It’s a really bad idea to have an export-oriented agricultural policy,” he told Al Jazeera.
Riekekhoff said that if this cuts goes through, it could also affect the United Kingdom, Canada, Mexico, France, Germany and Italy.
He noted that the United Nations estimates that between $2.5 and $3.5 trillion is currently spent in the global supply chain, and the food sector accounts for roughly 10% of that.
If Trump wants his cuts to affect the US agriculture industry, Rieekhoff argues, the USDA would have to go a step further.
“The USDA could be going beyond that,” he said.
“But they would have an incentive to make the cuts in order to make a political point.”
The US Department of Agriculture says it will not cut subsidies to the US agricultural sector.
The Department of Commerce says the US will not have to reduce its grain import quotas and the price of corn.
Riedekhoff thinks this will be the case.
“Agriculture has the biggest share of US grain, so it’s going to be really hard for the USDA to reduce any of its grain imports,” he added.
But that doesn’t mean that the food supply is going to disappear, he says.
“We have a huge global grain market,” Riekelson told Aljazeera.
“I don’t think you can expect the global grain supply to be totally wiped out by the elimination of subsidies.”
He added that the price per pound of grain, which is the basis for the value of all food, will continue to be relatively stable, though it may drop.
“If you look at the price that farmers are paying for grain, the price has been rising for decades,” Riedekerk told AlJazeera.
The US could also take advantage of other countries’ food supply cuts, according the USDA.
For example, if the UK cuts its grain prices, the US could increase its prices by buying grain from other countries, Riedeckhoff said.
This would also affect food prices for the UK and others, but that’s less of a concern because of how much the US relies on imports from countries like China.
But it’s also possible that the White House will be unable to achieve its goal.
The USDA estimates that the total global grain import bill for 2016 is $7.2 trillion, and there’s currently no way to know if the cuts would actually affect this number.
The government’s proposed cuts could also be damaging to the global trade system, according John Bierman, a professor of international trade and economics at Harvard University.
He told Aljit on the program that the cuts could have a negative impact on global trade.
“What it means is that if there are less grains coming in to the world than there used to be, that means that a lot of people in the country that has been importing grain for a long time are going to have to find other ways to get it,” Bier