“Houston, we have a problem here.” The iconic phrase uttered by astronaut Jack Swigert and echoed, albeit with a touch more restraint—to convey calm—by Jim Lovell, commander of the Apollo 13 space mission in April 1970, has informally become the alert used when an unforeseen event arises, indicating a difficult situation requiring immediate attention. For cinematic purposes, in the film Apollo 13, Hollywood changed the phrase to the present tense to make it more dramatic: “Houston, we have a problem.”
The statement could well be used by US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick to report on the state of their country’s economy: “Washington, we have a problem.” President Trump’s response has been to intervene more and more in the markets to contain the disaster and discontent the situation is generating. The debate within the administration revolves around softening or eliminating the fundamental principles that govern economic policy.
Among these arguments, one could cite how they would like to manage the tariff system. But their hands are tied. For example, regarding beef, Trump authorized an extraordinary and temporary tariff-free quota for the import of 300,000 metric tons of lean ground beef, divided into up to 100,000 tons per month for 90 days. With this, he intended to lower the price by 25% and contain food inflation. These imports would come—among other countries—from Australia, Mexico, and Brazil, which Trump has been hitting hard with tariffs.
However, one of the most unavoidable consequences is that the measure has affected domestic producers. It’s worth noting that the United States’ cattle inventory is at its lowest level since 1951 due to prolonged droughts, high interest rates, and increased input costs, which has rendered domestically produced beef uncompetitive. Industry leaders criticized the decision, warning that the massive influx of cheaper foreign beef would undermine domestic efforts to rebuild and expand cattle herds. In August, the price of beef for the end consumer reached US$15 (for ground beef) and over US$ 28 ( for premium cuts like sirloin or tenderloin), a 12% increase over the past year.
Another measure taken has been the reduction of interest rates, a natural decision when it becomes necessary to stimulate the economy at a time when a slowdown or weakness in the labor market is evident. One approach being implemented is the purchase of government bonds, and the other is reducing mortgage rates to obtain immediate financing to increase public spending, cover debts, and ultimately control the economy by regulating the money supply to curb inflation, in the first case. In the second, the aim is to stimulate the economy by making housing more affordable and freeing up money for consumption. Clearly, this does not solve the problem; it only provides a temporary solution, in this case with clear electoral objectives.
Alongside this, Trump has pressured energy companies to lower fuel prices and demanded the same from retailers. Similarly, the US president’s tariff policy has generated discontent even within his own party, which is beginning to fear an electoral disaster in November. Furthermore, Trump’s confrontation with Canada, the United States’ second-largest trading partner and one of its most important political allies—a confrontation that some Republican leaders have now gone so far as to call a “useful idiot”—is not helping to resolve the problem.
These actions are clearly an expression of impotence and desperation on the part of the Trump administration. It’s worth remembering that the U.S. Supreme Court, on February 20th of this year, struck down the sweeping global tariffs imposed by Trump under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act, which has led the president to operate on the fringes of the law and his country’s institutions with arguments as futile as claiming that the measures allow the United States to “fight forced labor” around the world.
In this scenario, the Midwestern states that make up the U.S. Corn Belt (Iowa, the nation’s largest producer, Illinois, Nebraska, Indiana, and to a lesser extent Minnesota, Ohio, Kansas, Missouri, South Dakota, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Kentucky) are in a clear economic crisis. It’s worth noting that all of these states, with the exception of Illinois, have traditionally voted Republican. Therefore, Trump’s economic policies are eroding his party’s historical electoral base.
Agricultural producers have stated that the trade war with Iran and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz have significantly increased the prices of diesel and fertilizers, two essential inputs for their work. It is important to note that 10 years ago, a ton of fertilizer cost $470, and now the price has risen to $900 per ton. Similarly, the price of diesel has reached $6.50 per gallon, and in states like California, it has even climbed to $9.99 per gallon, whereas before the trade war with Iran, the price was around $3.81 per gallon. They have also reported that Trump’s trade war with China has caused them to lose access to that country’s enormous soybean market, as China has opted to buy primarily from Brazil and Argentina in response to the tariffs imposed by the US president.
Agricultural producers’ associations say their members are suffering the worst financial recession since 1980 and have warned that if they do not receive government assistance, producers of the 9 main crops (corn, soybeans, hay, wheat, cotton, sorghum, rice, barley and canola) will lose $31 billion this year and $32 billion by 2027.
This situation has led to increased interest rates on bank loans, high labor costs, and higher prices for agricultural machinery. This, coupled with the extreme drought affecting almost the entire country, with low river flows, critical well levels, and water scarcity that reduces agricultural irrigation and food production, creates an extremely critical situation. This comes as Trump refuses to acknowledge the existence of climate change and rejects the adversity posed by increased military spending to finance his wars around the world and sustain the enormous and useless US military apparatus.
The culmination of this terrible scenario is that it is the end consumer (the ordinary people of the United States) who are suffering the consequences of this extraordinary folly: products like meat and corn (already mentioned), but also basic food items such as coffee, chocolate, eggs, bread, dairy products, and their entire supply chain, have seen price increases in retail markets. Some examples of the exorbitant price hikes include: Coffee (15.8%), meat (as mentioned, around 12%), tomatoes (12.8%), and apples (11.1%). In the case of gasoline (which Energy Secretary Chris Wright refuses to discuss with the press), the price has reached $4.48 per gallon, compared to $3.20 before the war—a 29% increase.
There’s no way to hide it. Americans must be saying, “Washington, we have a problem,” but this time, not even NASA can save them.