Rural Nebraskans are increasingly viewing U.S. trade policy through the lens of their personal finances, prioritizing immediate economic impacts such as consumer prices and job protection over broader foreign policy objectives. A recent statewide survey indicates that while core attitudes on trade remain stable, subtle shifts reveal a growing focus on household budgetary pressures and the local economic landscape. This perspective underscores a pragmatic approach to global commerce, where the tangible benefits to families, businesses, and communities in Nebraska take precedence.
According to the 2025 Nebraska Rural Poll conducted by the University of Nebraska–Lincoln, a majority of residents believe that protecting American jobs, lowering consumer prices, and creating new export opportunities for the state’s agricultural and business sectors are the most critical considerations in determining trade policy. These top-tier priorities reflect a direct connection between international trade agreements and the economic well-being of rural Nebraskans. The findings suggest that decisions made in Washington have palpable consequences that resonate deeply across the state’s non-metropolitan areas, influencing everything from farm revenues to the cost of goods on local store shelves.
Growing Emphasis on Consumer Costs
A notable shift in the 2025 poll compared to the previous year is the increased importance placed on the price of consumer goods. The percentage of rural Nebraskans who rated “lower prices for consumers” as a very important factor in trade policy rose from 51% in 2024 to 56% in the current survey. This five-point increase points to a heightened sensitivity to inflation and the cost of living. Researchers suggest this change indicates that residents are paying closer attention to the direct economic consequences of trade deals.
Becky Vogt, the survey manager for the Rural Poll, noted that even with the implementation of new tariffs and ongoing trade debates, the fundamental views of rural Nebraskans did not dramatically change. “Even with the implementation and threat of new tariffs since we conducted our 2024 survey, we didn’t see big changes in how rural Nebraskans view trade policy,” Vogt said. “The items that did see increased importance, though, suggest they are paying more attention to economic concerns—where we get our goods and how much we’re paying for them.” This focus aligns with broader economic anxieties, as a 2024 poll showed eight in 10 rural Nebraskans were concerned about their household’s cost of living.
Core Priorities for Local Economies
The poll consistently shows that the most important trade policy considerations for rural Nebraskans are those that directly bolster their local and state economies. Nearly six in 10 respondents, or 57%, stated that protecting American jobs should be a very important determinant of U.S. trade policy. This was followed closely by the 56% who prioritized lower prices for consumers. The third-highest priority was the creation of new export opportunities for Nebraska’s agricultural producers and other businesses, with 54% of respondents rating it as very important.
These priorities underscore a perspective rooted in immediate and tangible outcomes. Brad Lubben, an associate professor of agricultural economics at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln, explained that these responses demonstrate a practical mindset. “These responses show that rural Nebraskans view trade policy through the lens of their household budgets and local economies,” Lubben stated. “Protecting jobs, keeping prices manageable and supporting agricultural exports rise to the top because they directly affect rural livelihoods. The data remind us that trade decisions made in Washington have very real consequences for families, businesses and communities across rural Nebraska.”
Generational and Occupational Divides
While the overall priorities show a clear trend, the data also reveals significant differences in opinion across demographic groups. Age and occupation play a crucial role in shaping how rural residents weigh various aspects of trade policy. The importance of lower consumer prices, for instance, is felt much more acutely by younger Nebraskans. A commanding 77% of respondents between the ages of 19 and 29 believe lowering prices should be a very important consideration. This contrasts sharply with just 49% of those aged 65 and older who share the same view, highlighting a significant generational gap in economic pressures and priorities.
Views from the Agricultural Sector
Occupation also influences perspective, particularly within the state’s vital agricultural industry. While using trade policy to pressure countries that challenge U.S. economic and political interests was one of the lowest-rated priorities overall, it found more significant support among those working in agriculture. Forty-three percent of agricultural workers said this should be a very important determinant, compared to only 28% of the general rural population. This suggests that those directly involved in international agricultural markets may hold a more strategic, and perhaps more competitive, view of trade relations. “Trade policy doesn’t impact everyone the same way,” Lubben commented, emphasizing the nuanced perspectives across different sectors of the rural economy.
International Relations as a Secondary Concern
While pocketbook issues dominate the priorities of rural Nebraskans, broader foreign policy goals associated with trade are seen as important, but to a lesser degree. Strengthening economic relationships with other countries was rated as very important by 47% of those surveyed. Following closely behind were strengthening and safeguarding political relationships with other countries and creating more choices for consumers, both of which were considered very important by 42% of respondents.
The least important consideration was the use of trade as a coercive tool. Only 28% of rural Nebraskans surveyed believe that using trade policies to pressure countries that challenge U.S. economic and political priorities should be a very important goal. This suggests a preference for trade policy that focuses on mutual economic benefit and stability rather than geopolitical maneuvering. The overall sentiment remains positive toward international commerce, with a 2024 poll finding that 55% of rural Nebraskans believe international trade is generally good for the state’s economy, while only 8% view it as bad. However, this support is not uniform across the state, with residents of the Panhandle region showing more skepticism about the benefits of trade for Nebraska’s economy.
