John Deere cuts jobs as farm equipment demand falters
Subscribe to our free newsletter today to keep up to date with the latest manufacturing news.
John Deere is laying off more than 200 workers across three U.S. manufacturing plants as the world’s largest farm machinery maker responds to weakening demand from the agricultural sector. The company said the decision was prompted by declining order volumes and a shift in customer sentiment, particularly across the Midwest where large-scale farming remains economically strained.
Layoffs tied to slower orders and farmer caution
The layoffs will affect 238 production employees in Illinois and Iowa. Specifically, 115 workers at Deere’s Harvester Works facility in East Moline will see their final day on August 29. Another 52 workers at the Seeding and Cylinder plant in Moline will finish on September 26, while 71 employees at the Waterloo Foundry are scheduled to exit by September 19.
The company cited a “decrease in demand for products built at these facilities” as the primary reason. Industry analysts link the trend to lower commodity prices and elevated operating costs across the farming economy. Many producers are holding back on large capital investments, preferring to maintain existing equipment rather than purchase new.
While initial state filings suggested that layoffs at the East Moline plant could top 800, Deere clarified this was a clerical error. The accurate number is significantly smaller and tied directly to market conditions, not long-term structural closures.
Support measures for displaced workers
Deere said affected workers will be eligible for a range of post-layoff benefits. This includes potential recall rights, supplemental pay, continued health insurance, access to tuition support, and job placement assistance. These are consistent with support the company has provided in past layoff rounds.
While Deere has not disclosed how long these roles may remain vacant, some analysts believe demand could begin to recover in 2026 depending on grain pricing, interest rates, and the adoption of new federal farm support programs. Until then, job stability in agricultural manufacturing may remain tenuous.
Financial pressures add weight to the cuts
The layoffs come amid a broader recalibration at Deere. The company reported net income of $1.29 billion for its fiscal third quarter, down from $1.73 billion a year earlier. Quarterly sales fell by approximately 9 percent to $12.02 billion, as both domestic and international markets slowed.
Margins in Deere’s high-value production and precision agriculture division also softened, contributing to the company’s decision to lower its annual profit forecast. It now expects net income between $4.75 billion and $5.25 billion for the year, down from previous guidance.
Tariff-related costs on steel and aluminum imports continue to affect manufacturing margins. In addition, global trade uncertainty and surplus used-equipment inventory have added to downward pressure. Many dealers have reported cautious buying patterns, citing tighter liquidity and lower farm income projections for the remainder of the year.
Restructuring for a more predictable future
Despite short-term job cuts, Deere is not stepping back from its long-term manufacturing commitments. The company has pledged nearly $20 billion in U.S. investments over the next decade, including upgrades in automation and precision-agriculture capabilities.
Executives at Deere have emphasized a transition away from a purely hardware-focused business model. Increasingly, the company is directing capital toward digital platforms and software subscriptions that offer farmers predictive insights and operational control through connected equipment. Deere expects that recurring revenue from software, artificial intelligence, and data services will provide more stability than the cyclical nature of equipment sales.
In the short term, however, that transformation will not shield production workers from the volatility tied to seasonal and economic cycles. Analysts have described Deere’s approach as balancing near-term fiscal discipline with longer-term strategic reinvestment.
Sources