As a second Trump presidency looms on the horizon, one pressing issue for American and Australian farmers remains unresolved: the unfettered right to repair their own agricultural machinery. With both groups at loggerheads with the big farm machinery manufacturers over who gets the right to access software locks to repair complex tractors and headers, what happens under Trump could impact where this long running debate finally settles.

The modern right-to-repair battle traces its roots to the United States, back to the first electronic engine management systems that arrived in the 1990s, where farmers and their local independent mechanic were some of the first to raise the alarm over the fact that the computer said ‘no’ to access without authorisation.

By locking farmers out of the proprietary software needed to diagnose and repair machinery, manufacturers effectively forced farmers to rely on authorised dealers for repairs. This monopoly not only drives up repair costs but also leads to delays during critical periods as the pool of available technicians becomes limited to the dealers who will prioritise their clients who buy new versus second hand.

Older models, while less efficient, offer the freedom to wave spanners around without being locked out by software barriers. But with much of the pre-computer era machinery having been retired, more and more farmers are having to go through the dealers to get access to the codes that oversee their equipment.

For example, something as simple as a sensor replacement might require proprietary software to reset the system. Without access to that software, farmers are left waiting—sometimes for days—for a technician to arrive with a computer, to potentially do something as simple as a reboot.

Adding to the complexity of the debate is the sleeper issue of the carbon catastrophists who have quietly managed to embed minimum global emissions standards into each new generation of diesel as part of a growing effort to force the world to curb the production of plant food.

Since 1992 Europe has rolled out the various engine standards starting with Euro 1 in 1992 leading up to the current Euro 6 which required a 97 per cent reduction in particles to Euro 1. The Americans have matched these with their EPA Tier 1 to EPA 2010 standards. 

To meet those emissions standards, ever more complex computers and sensors have been installed in engines, which has complicated the debate around right to repair as the manufacturers have waived the environmental risk of farmers tweaking with the emissions controls to unthrottle their new clean green farming machine.

Despite the use of the climate defence the American farming community have pushed back and after a long and bitter fight have convinced various state authorities to begin passing local R-to-R legislation. 

These laws require manufacturers of everything from washing machines to cars to tractors to provide access to diagnostic tools, repair manuals, and software updates to independent mechanics and equipment owners. While these victories were hard-fought, they are far from universal, with across the board federal-level legislation still facing stiff resistance from the cashed up corporate lobbyists who represent the manufacturing class.

Coming in behind the big manufacturers is big tech, which has piled in arguing that they don’t want customers getting access to their software as it is their intellectual property.

Between them they are making the case that buyers of farm machinery purchase the hardware  but not the software, purchasers of machinery and technology sign a ‘user licence‘ which, within its very numerous provisions and arcane legal language, often waives the rights to control the use of any subsequent data that the machinery or technology generates.

This may mean that any warranties are void in the event that the user or an independent repairer attempts to rectify a problem or modify the equipment to enhance performance, and may also confer on the manufacturer the right to use data in a range of different ways, including by selling it to third parties.

So, there are actually two parts of the debate – the first being the ability of independent repairers and owners to access diagnostic tools and spare parts, and the second being …the broader issue of intellectual property rights and software ownership. This includes questions about whether consumers should have the legal ability to modify or bypass embedded software, which manufacturers argue could compromise safety, ‘environmental standards’ and the integrity of proprietary technology. 

Note the words ‘Environmental Standards’. By recently pulling the environment card , the argument for right to repair just became far more difficult. Advocates for R-to-R legislation contend that without it farmers face increase costs, while opponents maintain that such access poses significant risks to not only innovation, compliance and operational security but also the boogy man of the environment. 

While it was a good try, big manufacturing and big tech were not winning this debate in America as various American State governments were passing their own R-to-R legislation. In response,  the US farm machine manufacturers got smart and in 2023 did a deal with their equivalent of the NFF to take the issue off the legislative table by signing a MOU, with the American Farm Bureau Federation setting out an understanding that ensures farmers have a limited right to repair. The farm bureau called it a “private-sector solution to the right to repair issue.”

Note the word ‘understanding’, this is not black letter law, just an agreement to allow someone other than the dealer to be able to tap into the computers and then wave spanners at farm machinery.

The manufacturers agreed to release customer diagnostic tools via a subscription service charging between US $1,500 to $3,100 per year plus the cost of the plugs to access the computers.  While it’s not quite the same as having full computer access as the local dealer has, it was a vast improvement to what was on offer before.

In the agreement, the big manufacturers promised to give farmers and independent repair shops access to customer diagnostic tools. In exchange, the AFBF agreed not to support any further federal or state repair legislation.

But when the fine print was read and what was on offer was compared to the level of information the dealers could access, it became clear that the farmers access was quite limited in scope.

The dealers retained a privileged level of access. They can get through the last digital door needed to fix the thing, and farmers either don’t have access to that door, the door is locked, or they had to go through three, six, nine different doors just to get to the same place that the dealer was able to get to quickly.

In addition, dealer-level access provides links to step-by-step troubleshooting guides and information on the primary diagnostics screen that are not present in the farmer level tools. 

Additionally, they restrict databases to troubleshooting and repair information on manufacturing defects are not included in the materials promised by the MOUs [sic].

Another complexity is that many parts must be electronically paired to modern tractors, much in the same way that the installation of a driver is necessary to allow a computer to communicate with a printer. 

But to be fair, the manufacturers argue that they don’t want their competitors to have access to every last detail of their designs and they are no longer are opposed to farmers repairing their equipment, just they don’t want to see them making modifications such as re-chipping engines impacting safety, reliability or emissions. And on and on the debate rages in the US. 

Internationally, the European Union has been going through a similar debate leading to the adoption of their Right to Repair Directive in May 2024. This directive mandates that manufacturers offer efficient and affordable repair services and ensure consumers are informed about their repair rights.

But a directive is not a law. The current EU regulations do not explicitly impose right-to-repair obligations on manufacturers of agricultural equipment.  In fact, with no state governments forcing the issue, they are even further behind the Americans as they don’t even have a MOU to give them partial access.

So, what’s been happening in Australia? Well, we have no laws, no MOU and no EU like directive. 

We have nothing, even through the NFF has been a vocal advocate for the right to repair, pushing the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) to launch its first inquiry into the right to repair in 2020.

When the findings came out, it was made clear that farmers should be given the manufacturer-held codes as keys to the toolbox. 

Despite this, the Commonwealth under Albanese has done nothing for agriculture, preferring reforms largely confined to consumer electronics and appliances. Even the motor traders are better off than farmers as at least they have a legislation which offers independent mechanics access to motor vehicle service and repair information at a fair price, leveling the playing field with authorised dealerships.

The only thing on offer to farmers was the recent announcement in November 2024 by Federal Treasurer Jim Chalmers of a $400 million commitment to advance the right to repair across various industries. Apparently, this will “build upon existing automotive legislation and seeks to create a more competitive and consumer-friendly repair landscape nationwide”, whatever that means. 

Which takes me back to Trump. 

Trump loves the Republican voting American farmer, however, he has also emphasised a deep commitment to American manufacturing, claiming strong domestic manufacturing is needed to “Make America Great Again (MAGA).”

The right-to-repair debate places Trump at a crossroads; his populist instincts may push him to side with the farmers, appealing to his rural voter base. On the other side, the manufacturers provide manufacturing jobs to the rust belt and wield considerable lobbying influence in Washington. 

Trump’s support for MAGA could align him with the likes of big tech and big manufacturers and their argument that right-to-repair laws play into the hands of the Chinese and risk intellectual property theft. 

For now, both sides wait to see who Trump 2.0 will choose to champion. In the meantime, any move by Australia to force US manufacturers to allow our farmers to fix their own machines and, worse, use cheaper Chinese knock-off parts would probably see Australia slapped with tariffs, which is the last thing our farmers need.

Or he could find a happy middle ground that supports the US Farmers Association of a MOU giving farmers halfway access to the codes. 

The worse outcome is Trump backing his own farmers by giving them full access to the codes but backing American manufacturers by using the threat of tariffs to lock the rest of the world out of having a local Right of Repair, including Australian farmers. 

Whatever happens the one thing we can be certain of is that Albanese and his US ambassador Rudd are the last people we need to be arguing our case to Trump.