In the rolling cornfields of Iowa, a quiet insurgency has been brewing—not over commodity prices or trade policy, but over the right to fix a tractor. For years, farmers across the heartland have waged a campaign against the digital locks that manufacturers embed in modern agricultural equipment, and their fight is now reshaping the national debate over who truly owns the machines they buy.
The battle lines are drawn between some of America’s most self-reliant workers and some of its most powerful industrial corporations. At stake is a principle as old as agriculture itself: the idea that when you buy a tool, you should be able to repair it.
The Digital Lock on the Barn Door
Modern farm equipment bears little resemblance to the mechanical workhorses of previous generations. Today’s tractors, combines, and planters are rolling computers, packed with proprietary software, sensors, and electronic control units that govern everything from engine performance to GPS-guided planting. When something breaks—as it inevitably does during the narrow windows of planting and harvest season—farmers increasingly find themselves unable to make repairs without authorization from the manufacturer.
As iFixit reported, Iowa farmers have emerged as the leading voices in the right-to-repair movement, pushing for legislation that would compel manufacturers like John Deere, AGCO, and CNH Industrial to provide independent repair shops and equipment owners with the diagnostic tools, software, and parts necessary to service their own machines. The frustration is visceral and immediate: a farmer whose combine throws an error code during harvest may face days of downtime waiting for a dealer technician, potentially losing thousands of dollars in crops.
Why Iowa Became Ground Zero
Iowa’s centrality to this fight is no accident. The state is the nation’s largest producer of corn and the second-largest producer of soybeans. Its agricultural output is worth tens of billions of dollars annually, and its farmers operate some of the most technologically advanced equipment on earth. The economic consequences of repair delays are not abstract—they are measured in bushels lost and livelihoods threatened.
According to iFixit’s reporting, Iowa farmers have testified repeatedly before state legislators, describing scenarios in which simple mechanical fixes are rendered impossible by software restrictions. One recurring theme is the so-called “tractor trap”: a farmer can identify and physically replace a faulty part, but the machine refuses to operate until a dealer plugs in a proprietary diagnostic tool to authorize the new component. This software-gated repair process effectively forces farmers into a single-dealer service model, regardless of cost, convenience, or urgency.
The Legislative Push and Industry Pushback
Right-to-repair legislation has been introduced in dozens of states over the past several years, but Iowa’s efforts carry particular weight because of the state’s outsized role in American agriculture. Advocates have framed the issue not merely as a consumer rights question but as a matter of food security and rural economic survival. When equipment sits idle during critical growing or harvesting periods, the ripple effects extend well beyond the individual farm.
Manufacturers have resisted these legislative efforts with considerable resources. Industry groups, including the Association of Equipment Manufacturers and the Equipment Dealers Association, have argued that opening up proprietary diagnostic systems could compromise equipment safety, expose trade secrets, and create cybersecurity vulnerabilities. John Deere, the most prominent target of farmer ire, has historically maintained that its software licensing agreements are necessary to protect intellectual property and ensure that repairs meet safety and emissions standards.
A Memorandum That Satisfied Almost No One
In January 2023, the American Farm Bureau Federation announced a memorandum of understanding with John Deere that was billed as a compromise. Under the agreement, Deere committed to making certain diagnostic tools and resources available to farmers and independent repair providers. But the deal was met with skepticism from many repair advocates, who argued it lacked enforcement mechanisms and still left manufacturers with ultimate control over software access.
As iFixit noted, the memorandum was widely seen as an attempt to head off binding legislation rather than a genuine concession. Critics pointed out that the agreement was voluntary, contained no penalties for noncompliance, and did not address the fundamental issue of software ownership. Iowa farmers, many of whom had been pushing for statutory protections, viewed the deal as insufficient. Their continued advocacy has kept pressure on state lawmakers to pass enforceable right-to-repair laws rather than rely on industry self-regulation.
The Broader Right-to-Repair Movement
The agricultural fight is part of a much larger national movement that spans consumer electronics, medical devices, automobiles, and powered wheelchairs. In 2021, the Federal Trade Commission issued a report concluding that manufacturer repair restrictions were widespread and often unjustified, and the Biden administration subsequently issued an executive order encouraging the FTC to pursue right-to-repair rules. Several states, including New York, California, Minnesota, and Colorado, have passed various forms of right-to-repair legislation in recent years.
But the agricultural sector presents a uniquely compelling case. Unlike a consumer who might be mildly inconvenienced by an inability to repair a smartphone, a farmer facing equipment downtime during a two-week harvest window confronts potential financial ruin. The time sensitivity of agricultural work, combined with the geographic isolation of many farming operations—often located hours from the nearest authorized dealer—makes the repair monopoly particularly punitive. Iowa farmers have been effective messengers precisely because their stories carry an urgency that resonates with lawmakers across the political spectrum.
The Economics of Repair Monopolies
The financial dimensions of the dispute are substantial. Modern agricultural equipment represents enormous capital investments—a new John Deere combine can cost upward of $500,000, and a large tractor can exceed $300,000. Farmers who finance these purchases expect to maintain and repair them over equipment lifespans that often stretch 15 to 20 years. When manufacturers control the repair process, they also control the aftermarket revenue stream, which can be enormously profitable.
Independent repair shops, once a fixture of rural communities, have found themselves increasingly marginalized. Without access to manufacturer diagnostic software, these businesses cannot compete with authorized dealerships for service work on newer equipment. The result, according to repair advocates cited by iFixit, has been a consolidation of repair services that has reduced competition, increased costs, and eroded the economic fabric of small agricultural towns. For farmers, the loss of a local repair option can mean the difference between a same-day fix and a multi-day wait.
Cybersecurity and Safety: Real Concerns or Convenient Shields?
Manufacturers’ arguments about safety and cybersecurity are not entirely without merit. Modern tractors that operate autonomously or semi-autonomously do rely on complex software systems, and poorly executed repairs could theoretically create safety hazards. Emissions compliance, governed by federal EPA regulations, is another area where manufacturers argue that unrestricted software access could lead to illegal modifications.
However, repair advocates counter that these concerns are overstated and selectively invoked. Automobiles, which present comparable safety and emissions considerations, have been subject to right-to-repair requirements for years. The automotive industry’s experience, particularly under Massachusetts’ right-to-repair law, suggests that providing diagnostic access to independent shops does not inherently compromise safety. Farmers and their advocates argue that the same principles should apply to agricultural equipment, and that manufacturers are using safety rhetoric as a shield for anticompetitive practices.
What Comes Next for America’s Repair Rights
The trajectory of the right-to-repair movement in agriculture appears to be moving toward legislative action, though the pace and scope remain uncertain. Iowa’s 2025 legislative session has seen renewed activity on the issue, with farm groups continuing to press for comprehensive repair legislation that would go well beyond the voluntary commitments made by manufacturers. The political dynamics are favorable: right to repair enjoys bipartisan support in agricultural states, where skepticism of corporate overreach and respect for property rights cut across party lines.
At the federal level, bipartisan interest has also grown. Several members of Congress from farm states have introduced or co-sponsored right-to-repair bills, and the FTC has signaled its willingness to take enforcement action against repair restrictions it deems anticompetitive. Meanwhile, the European Union has moved aggressively on repair rights, creating additional pressure on global manufacturers to adopt more open repair policies.
For Iowa’s farmers, the fight is far from over, but the momentum is unmistakable. What began as a localized grievance about broken tractors and unresponsive dealers has grown into a national reckoning with the question of ownership in an age of software-dependent machinery. The farmers who once fixed their own equipment with wrenches and welding torches are now fixing the law—and they show no signs of stopping until the job is done.