In its August 27, 2026 quarterly outlook, USDA projected fiscal-year agricultural exports of $186.5 billion, up $7 billion from the May forecast of $179.5 billion. The August forecast for fiscal 2026 exports was $176.5 billion.

USDA also raised its fiscal 2027 import forecast to $211 billion, from $204.5 billion in May. That leaves a projected agricultural trade deficit of $24.5 billion, slightly narrower than the $25 billion deficit projected in May.

USDA defines the fiscal year as October 1 through September 30. The figures are projections, not final fiscal 2027 results. The report also says its assumptions reflect policies in effect when USDA issued its August 12, 2026 World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates and assume those policies remain in place through the forecast period.

What changed from the May outlook

• Exports: $186.5 billion, up from $179.5 billion.
• Imports: $211 billion, up from $204.5 billion.
• Projected balance: a $24.5 billion deficit, compared with $25 billion in May.

The higher export estimate is concentrated in several major product groups. Oilseeds and products rose to $35.1 billion from $30.8 billion in May. Horticultural products increased to $45.5 billion from $42.6 billion. Livestock, poultry and dairy rose to $40.7 billion from $39.7 billion. Grains and feeds rose to $43.3 billion from $42.5 billion in May.

China, Mexico and Canada drive market revisions

USDA’s largest single-country revision was for China. The agency raised its fiscal 2027 export-value forecast for China to $21.5 billion, compared with $12 billion in the May outlook.

The forecast for Mexico increased to $32 billion, from $31.5 billion, and the Canada forecast rose to $29 billion, from $28.9 billion. USDA also raised its fiscal 2027 forecast for agricultural exports to Asia to $70.1 billion, compared with $62 billion in May.

Those figures describe expected export values, not completed purchases, guaranteed orders or a confirmed trade agreement. Actual results will depend on demand, commodity prices, exchange rates, transportation and trade conditions.

Value is not the same as volume

A higher dollar forecast does not necessarily mean that the United States will ship proportionally more physical goods. Export value can change because prices, exchange rates or the mix of products changes.

USDA’s tables show that distinction. For fiscal 2027, the August forecast puts soybean export value at $21.9 billion and volume at 45.2 million metric tons. The May forecast was $18.4 billion and 41.4 million metric tons, respectively. For wheat, however, the August value forecast rose to $6.3 billion while projected volume fell to 21.5 million metric tons from the May forecast of 22.1 million.

Why imports remain central

A trade deficit occurs when the value of imports exceeds the value of exports. USDA’s projected $211 billion in imports is still $24.5 billion higher than its $186.5 billion export forecast.

The largest projected import categories include horticultural products at $88.2 billion, sugar and tropical products at $37.3 billion, and livestock, dairy and poultry at $35.8 billion. Within those categories, USDA lists products such as fresh fruit, vegetables, coffee, cocoa, meat, dairy products and vegetable oils.

Some of those products are imported because of seasonality, climate, consumer demand or supply-chain economics. A trade deficit in agriculture therefore does not mean the United States lacks a viable farm sector, nor does it measure farm-sector profit. It is simply the difference between the value of agricultural imports and exports.

What it means for farmers and businesses

The revised outlook points to stronger expected export demand for some U.S. crops and animal products. Grain and oilseed growers may have more favorable marketing opportunities if projected sales become actual orders. Dairy, livestock and poultry producers, food processors, exporters and businesses connected to agricultural transportation may also benefit from higher trade values.

But the forecast does not guarantee prices, sales or higher farm income. Producers remain exposed to crop conditions, input costs, currency movements, foreign demand, transportation costs and policy changes. A stronger export-value forecast can coexist with flat or falling shipment volumes in some products.

Businesses that rely on imported ingredients or products face a different set of risks. Coffee, cocoa, tropical fruit, some vegetables, meats, dairy products and vegetable oils can be affected by global supply, exchange rates, shipping costs and trade policy, even when the overall agricultural trade balance changes only modestly.

What consumers should watch

The USDA forecast is not a direct prediction of grocery prices. Retail prices also reflect weather, labor, fuel, processing, transportation, inventories, exchange rates and retailer decisions.

The cattle market illustrates why trade changes may not pass through quickly to shoppers. The Associated Press reported that economists did not expect the reopening of the U.S.-Mexico cattle trade to produce a measurable near-term reduction in beef prices because the U.S. cattle herd remains historically small and imports would take time to return to traditional levels.

For consumers, the most useful signals will be actual monthly trade data, commodity prices, livestock and dairy conditions, and changes in transportation or trade policy—not the forecast alone.

What happens next

USDA’s next agricultural-trade outlook is scheduled for November 24, 2026. Until then, official monthly data from USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Trade of the United States system will show whether export shipments and import purchases are beginning to track the August projections.

Sources

• USDA August 2026 Agricultural Trade Outlook
• USDA Global Agricultural Trade System
• Associated Press cattle-trade analysis

What changed

The proclamation directs Treasury and Commerce to allow duty-free imports under the temporary window. The White House says the step is meant to keep phosphate fertilizer available for U.S. farmers during the planting and growing cycle.

Why the White House says it acted

The administration says phosphate fertilizer is essential to crop production and that domestic output is not enough to meet agricultural demand after exports are counted. It also pointed to recent disruptions in global fertilizer supply chains and said the emergency response is needed while U.S. production capacity expands.

Who may feel it first

Farmers, fertilizer importers, wholesalers, and crop buyers are the first groups likely to notice the change. Reuters reported that farmers have been dealing with fertilizer shortages, while DTN said the suspension could matter for pricing and planning ahead of the next planting season.

For consumers, any effect would be indirect. Fertilizer costs can feed into crop economics and, over time, food prices. The immediate change is narrower: a temporary opening for Moroccan phosphate imports and a signal that the administration sees fertilizer supply as a national-security issue.

What to watch next

Key questions are how quickly importers use the window, whether farm groups and domestic producers respond, and whether the administration extends, ends, or adjusts the emergency before the eight months run out.

Sources

• White House presidential action: Declaration of emergency and temporary duty-free importation of phosphate fertilizer from Morocco
• Reuters report syndicated by Investing.com: U.S. to suspend some duties on phosphate fertilizer from Morocco
• DTN farm policy report: Declaring emergency, Trump suspends duties on Moroccan phosphate fertilizer