Yes, it would make money for stockholders. But it's much more than that: it's an empire-scale psychological game for leverage in the future.
LOL
Under Trump policies, China will win "in the future" on energy and protein production alone.
Once we've speedrunned our petro supply and exhausted our agricultural inputs with unfathomably inefficient protein production, China can sit back and watch us crumble under our own starvation.
No conflict necessary under these policies, just patience! They're playing the game on a scale of centuries, we can't even stay focused on a single problem or opportunity for a few weeks.
In 2023 China had more net new solar capacity than the US has in total, and it will only climb from there. In order to do this, they're flexing muscles in R&D and mass production that the US has actually started to flex, and now will face extreme headwinds and decreased capital investment.
Regarding agriculture: America's agricultural powerhouse, California's Central Valley, is rapidly depleting its water supplies. The midwest is depleting its topsoil at double the rate that USDA considers sustainable.
None of this is irreversible or irrecoverable, but it very clearly requires some countervailing push on market forces. Market forces do not naturally operate on these types of time scales and repeatedly externalize costs to neighbors or future generations.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-35582-x
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/57-billion-tons-of...
No-till farming has been significantly supported by the USDA’s programs like EQIP
During his first term, Trump pushed for a $325MM cut to EQIP. That's 20-25% of their funding and would have required cutting hundreds if not thousands of employees.
Even BEFORE these cuts (and whatever he does this time around), USDA already has to reject almost 75% of eligible EQIP applicants
Regarding CA’s water: Trump already signed an EO requiring more water be diverted from the San Joaquin Delta into the desert Central Valley to subsidize water-intensive crops. This water, by the way, is mostly sold to mega-corps at rates 98% below what nearby American consumers pay via their municipal water supplies, effectively eliminating the blaring sirens that say “don’t grow shit in the desert.”
Now copy-paste to every other mechanism by which we can increase our nation’s climate security and ta-da, you’ve discovered one of the major problems with Trumpism. It turns out politics do matter!
But why are programs like this controversial, even though anything shaped like a farm subsidy is normally popular? It seems to me that things like your Central Valley analysis are precisely the reason. The Central Valley has been one of the nation's agricultural heartlands for a while, and for quite a few common food products represents 90%+ of domestic production. So if this "blaring siren" you describe is real, and we have to stop farming there, a realistic response plan would have to include an explanation of what all the farmers are going to do and where we'll get almonds and broccoli from.
Perhaps you know all this already, but a lot of people who advocate such policies don't seem to. This then feeds into skepticism about whether they're hearing the "blaring siren" correctly in the first place. Personally, I think nearly arbitrarily extreme water subsidies are worth it if that's what we need to keep olives and pomegranates and celery in stock at the grocery store.