Water Treaty Clash and Farm Aid Dominate USDA's Border Agenda

In the Rio Grande Valley, farmers have faced years of uncertainty, caught between dwindling water supplies and the ripple effects of border crossings. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, under Secretary Brooke Rollins, has stepped into the fray, rolling out measures to bolster American agriculture while navigating tense U.S.-Mexico relations. From tightening federal benefit rules to demanding treaty compliance, the agency’s actions reflect a broader effort to prioritize U.S. farmers amid complex challenges.

Announced in April 2025, these policies target immediate concerns for border communities, particularly in Texas, where water shortages and pest threats loom large. A $280 million grant to support farmers affected by Mexico’s failure to deliver water under a decades-old treaty signals a commitment to economic relief. Yet, the moves also stir debate over their long-term impact on labor, trade, and cross-border ties, raising questions about balancing domestic needs with international realities.

At the heart of the USDA’s agenda lies a simmering dispute over the 1944 Water Treaty, which governs water sharing between the U.S. and Mexico along the Rio Grande. Mexico has fallen short of its delivery obligations, leaving South Texas farmers grappling with irrigation shortages. The $280 million grant, channeled through the Texas Department of Agriculture, aims to ease the financial burden on producers, but it underscores a deeper issue: Mexico’s struggle to meet treaty terms amid drought and domestic pressures.

Rollins has pressed Mexico to comply, sending a letter to her counterpart demanding action on water deliveries and the removal of restrictions on U.S. aircraft combating the New World Screwworm, a pest threatening livestock. These demands highlight the interconnected challenges of agriculture and border management, where environmental and economic stakes collide. While U.S. farmers welcome the support, some experts warn that escalating tensions could disrupt the $30.2 billion agricultural trade relationship with Mexico, the largest buyer of U.S. farm goods.

Beyond water and pest issues, the USDA has moved to restrict access to federal benefits, specifically targeting the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). New guidance, issued by Acting Deputy Under Secretary John Walk, requires states to enhance identity and immigration verification to ensure undocumented immigrants cannot access these funds. This aligns with a broader executive order aimed at curbing taxpayer support for noncitizens, a policy rooted in long-standing debates over public resource allocation.

Proponents argue the measures protect taxpayer dollars and deter unauthorized immigration by closing loopholes. However, most federal benefits, including SNAP, are already inaccessible to undocumented immigrants, with eligibility limited to citizens and certain legal residents. Critics contend the new rules add bureaucratic hurdles for eligible families, particularly in mixed-status households, and could exacerbate food insecurity among vulnerable groups, including U.S. citizen children.

While the USDA emphasizes support for farmers, its immigration policies intersect with a critical issue: labor shortages. Roughly 40% of U.S. crop workers are undocumented, and stricter enforcement, including mass deportation plans, could shrink the workforce further. Estimates suggest such policies might slash agricultural output by $30–60 billion, leaving crops unharvested and driving up food prices. Farmers, especially in border regions, already face rising costs for security and fencing due to increased crossings and cartel activity.

To address this, the administration is exploring expansions to the H-2A visa program, which could allow some undocumented workers to re-enter legally if backed by employers. This pragmatic approach acknowledges the sector’s reliance on foreign labor, a reality shaped by decades of policies like the Bracero Program. Yet, it stops short of broader immigration reform, leaving farmers and workers in a precarious balancing act.

The USDA’s policies carry far-reaching implications. Restricting benefits and tightening border enforcement may reduce federal spending, with some projecting savings of $35 billion over a decade from limiting Medicaid access alone. But studies also point to hidden costs: worse health outcomes, increased hunger, and higher emergency healthcare expenses borne by local governments. Mixed-status families, including millions of U.S. citizen children, could face disproportionate harm, amplifying social inequities.

Economically, the stakes are high. Mass deportations could shrink GDP by 4.2–6.8%, or $1.1–1.7 trillion, while trade disruptions from new tariffs risk retaliatory measures from Mexico, a key market. The USDA’s confrontational stance on water and pest issues may yield short-term gains but could strain long-term cooperation, testing a relationship vital to both nations’ agricultural sectors.

The USDA’s early moves signal a determined focus on American farmers, particularly those along the border, but the path forward is fraught with trade-offs. Supporting agriculture amid water shortages and labor constraints demands delicate navigation of domestic priorities and international obligations. As the U.S. presses Mexico on treaties and pest control, the risk of economic fallout looms, with billions in trade and millions of livelihoods at stake.

For farmers, workers, and communities caught in these crosswinds, the coming months will test the balance between enforcement, economic relief, and cross-border cooperation. The USDA’s actions, while bold, underscore a broader truth: agriculture thrives on stability, and finding it amid these tensions will shape the future of the borderlands and beyond.