Every day brings fresh horrors from the Trump administration, and nothing comforts like the knowledge that Donald Trump’s supporters are paying the price. In my Jan. 26 article, “Nebraska went big for Trump—and that may kill its economy,” I warned that Nebraska’s reliance on federal programs and its immigrant labor force made it uniquely vulnerable under Trump’s policies.
Turns out, I was right. A quarter later, Nebraska’s gross domestic product has shrunken more than 6% in early 2025, tying it with equally Trumpy Iowa for the worst drop in the nation. That statistic hit the headlines over a month ago, but what’s new is that Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins just had to face Nebraskans living through the fallout.
Farmers’ grievances were exactly what you’d expect: Their farms were short-staffed thanks to immigration raids, tariffs raised costs and shrank export markets, and pricing controls made it harder to sell crops.
The state’s all-Republican congressional delegation had a familiar solution: more federal dollars to bail out the same pull-themselves-up-by-their-bootstraps crowd that spent years railing against “socialism.” As Sen. Deb Fischer explained, “There’s a lot of risk involved in agriculture. … You can’t control the weather. … That’s why these safety nets are so important.”
Remember when “safety nets” were supposed to be a scourge?
Republican Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska, shown in June.
Rep. Don Bacon, who will retire soon and give Democrats a prime pickup opportunity in the House, had his own fix: Expand government mandates for biofuels.
“It’s the only way you’re going to move enough corn and soybeans,” he said. “Otherwise you’re going to have a depression.”
If there were a viable market case for ethanol without mandates, it would already exist.
Instead, Trump’s policies may be steering Nebraska straight into a depression. Farm bankruptcies are spiking—259 filings in just the first quarter, surpassing all of last year, according to Ryan Loy, an agricultural economist at the University of Arkansas. He says the financial pressures farmers face now mirror those from 2018 and 2019.
And who was president in 2018 and 2019? Exactly.
Imagine voting for economic devastation—and getting exactly that.
But in the middle of this wreckage lies a remarkable opening for Dan Osborn, a populist independent whose insurgent campaign nearly toppled a Republican Senate seat last year, even as Trump carried the state by more than 20 percentage points. Osborn overperformed Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris by 13 points in deep-red Nebraska, losing by just under 7 points.
Independent Dan Osborn, shown in July 2024, is mounting a second campaign for Senate in Nebraska, seeking to boot incumbent Republican Pete Ricketts this time.
Osborn’s platform—support for small-business tax relief, union rights, legalized marijuana, protecting Social Security, strengthening public schools, securing the border, and guaranteeing the right to repair—has focused relentlessly on economic livelihood while sidestepping divisive social issues. (Yeah, yeah, the border stuff is part of the reason Nebraska is struggling, but you seemingly can’t win the state without it, at least not yet.)
Now he’s running again—this time against Republican Sen. Pete Ricketts, one of the richest people in Congress. It’s the populist versus the privileged, the mechanic versus the moneyed elite.
Making breadbasket populism breathe again is no small thing. But if it can take root in Nebraska (and Iowa), it could radiate outward in future cycles. Let these states be the proving ground for a new prairie populism that can build a Senate majority on economic common ground.
While Trump’s policies hammer Nebraska’s farms, Osborn’s rise offers something rare: a beacon of populist hope in a state teetering under economic collapse.
