^{US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer testifies during a US Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies hearing on 2026 funding priorities, on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, Dec. 9, 2025.}

^{Saul Loeb | AFP | Getty Images}

^‍

A key deadline in the U.S.–China agricultural trade deal has come under new scrutiny after U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer clarified before a Senate Appropriations subcommittee that China’s obligation to buy 12 million metric tons of American soybeans extends through the current growing season rather than the end of December. The clarification contradicts the timeline outlined in the White House’s own fact sheet, creating further uncertainty for farmers who have been watching China’s purchasing pace with increasing concern.

Greer’s remarks came shortly after data showed that China had purchased only around 3 million metric tons of soybeans since agreeing in October to end its prolonged boycott of U.S. agricultural products. NBC News recently reported that China was far off track from meeting the December target advertised by the administration. The White House fact sheet had stated that China would buy at least 12 million metric tons during the last two months of 2025, followed by annual commitments of 25 million metric tons from 2026 to 2028. Yet Greer told lawmakers that those commitments apply to the soybean growing season, not the calendar year.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture indicates that the 2025 soybean growing season ended in November, widening the interpretation of the deadline. When pressed by Sen. Deb Fischer, Greer acknowledged the inconsistency and attributed the confusion to a discrepancy between the White House communication and the agreement’s actual terms. Farmers, Greer said, had already contacted the administration seeking clarity, worried that China might miss its targets while prices remain volatile.

Former USDA chief economist Joe Glauber added further doubt by noting that “growing season” is not a standard USDA reference point in commercial agreements. Glauber explained that industry calculations usually revolve around the marketing year, which runs from September through August. He pointed out that China typically buys more U.S. soybeans later in the marketing year because Brazilian soybeans dominate the global market early in the year due to their harvest cycle and lower pricing. Under a marketing year interpretation, China could feasibly meet the 12 million metric ton requirement by late summer rather than by winter.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent recently suggested that China could meet the target by the end of February, referring to the end of the “season.” However, public USDA data as of mid November showed China had purchased only 330,000 metric tons during that period. Bessent dismissed those figures as outdated or incomplete and insisted that China remained on pace to meet its obligations.

Despite these assurances, agricultural analysts note that the extended timeline dramatically changes expectations for farmers. What was initially portrayed as immediate relief for growers battling depressed prices, shipping disruptions and rising production costs now appears to be a much longer window that may not deliver short term financial support. This shift also adds pressure to U.S. trade officials to provide consistent messaging at a time when global commodity markets remain fragile.

The USDA and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative have been asked for further clarification on the official deadline. For now, trading partners, commodity analysts and American farmers are operating with several competing interpretations of the commitment China made, leaving market expectations clouded until a final definition is issued.