Farming

Subterms

    Latest story

    175 Shares168 Views

    Donald Trump expected to announce framework of US-UK trade deal – UK politics live

    by

    Good morning. I’m Andrew Sparrow, picking up from Martin Belam.Here is a timetable for what we are expecting today. We will be mostly focused on the US-UK trade deal announcement, but there will be some other politics too.9am: Keir Starmer gives a speech at the London defence conference. He is not expected to take questions.9.30am: Steve Reed, the environment secretary, takes questions in the Commons.10.30am: Lucy Powell, the leader of the Commons, takes questions on next week’s Commons business.11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.Noon: Starmer and other political leaders join the king and queen in Westminster Abbey for the service to commemorate the 80th anniversary of VE Day.After 12pm: After the two minutes’ silence to commemorate the 80th anniversary of VE Day, the Bank of England announces its interest rate.After 12pm: John Swinney, Scotland’s first minister, takes questions from MSPs.3pm (UK time): Donald Trump is due to make his announcement in the White House about the US-UK trade deal. He posted this on his Truth Social account earlier.Afternoon: Starmer is expected to make a statement about the trade deal.There will be a ministerial statement in the Commons this afternoon on the US-UK trade deal, Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker, told MPs at the start of business questions. But he said he did not know yet when this would be.Steve Reed, the environment secretary, has accused the opposition of trying to “weaponise” tragedy after his Tory opposite number claimed farmers are taking their lives because of Labour’s inheritance tax policy.The government announced in the budget last year that more valuable farms will lose their exemption from inheritance tax. Older farmer have complained that, having planned on the basis that they will be able to leave their farms to their children without an inheritance tax liability, they have had little time to make alternative arrangements before the tax change comes into force in April next year.Speaking during environment questions in the Commons, Victoria Atkins, the shadow environment secretary, said:
    Before Christmas, I warned the secretary of state that a farmer had taken their own life because they were so worried about the family farm tax. He responded with anger and later stopped the farming resilience fund, which helped farmers with mental ill health.
    This week, I have received the devastating news that several more farmers have taken their own lives because of the family farm tax. This is the secretary of state’s legacy, but he can change it, because it is not yet law.
    Will he set out these tragedies to the prime minister, demand that Labour policy is changed, or offer an appointed principal his resignation?
    In his reply, Reed said he was sorry that Atkins was seeking “to politicise personal tragedy in this way”. He went on:
    I think it’s immensely, immensely regrettable that she would seek to do that. None of us have been sure what happens in matters of personal tragedy. But I think it’s beneath her, actually, to try to weaponise it in a way that she has done this.
    This government takes the issues of mental health very, very seriously indeed. That is why we are setting up mental health hubs in every community so that we can support farmers and others who are suffering from mental health, which I would again remind her is a problem that escalated during her time in office the secretary of state for health, where she failed to address the problems people are facing.
    Keir Starmer used his speech to the London Defence Conference to announce a £563m contract for Rolls-Royce for the maintenance of Britain’s fleet of Typhoon fighter jets. “The work to maintain 130 Typhoon engines will take place at Rolls-Royce’s sites, supporting hundreds of jobs in Bristol and beyond,” No 10 said.He also said that British workers would gain from what he described as the “defence dividend” – the benefits to be had from the government’s decision to increase defence spending. Starmer said:
    Our task now is to seize the defence dividend – felt directly in the pockets of working people, rebuilding our industrial base and creating the jobs of the future.
    A national effort. A time for the state, business and society to join hands, in pursuit of the security of the nation and the prosperity of its people.
    An investment in peace, but also an investment in British pride and the British people to build a nation that, once again, lives up to the promises made to the generation who fought for our values, our freedom and our security.
    The phrase “defence dividend” is an allusion to the term “peace dividend” – which referred to the advantage Britain and other western countries gained at the end of the cold war when they could cut defence spending, meaning more government money was available for other priorities.What Starmer refers to as the “defence dividend” has been funded in part by huge cuts to aid spending. But Starmer has repeatedly sought to show that his policy will bring, not just defence gains, but employment gains too.Keir Starmer has said that acting in the national interest has been his priority in the talks on the UK-US trade deal expected to be announced later.Speaking to the London Defence Conference, Starmer:
    Talks with the US have been ongoing and you’ll hear more from me about that later today.
    But make no mistake, I will always act in our national interest, for workers, businesses and families, to deliver security and renewal for our country.
    The conventional wisdom at Westminster is that trade deals are a good thing, and that voters welcome them. But the US-UK deal could challenge this assumption because at least some of its features may look like protection racket payments handed over to an administration using tariffs as an instrument of extortion.In a post on social media, Robert Peston, ITV’s political editor, says British voters might not necessarily applaud what has been agreed.
    The UK’s soon-to-be announced tariff deal with the US matters hugely for two reasons.
    First, it is the first since Trump announced his coercive global tariffs on the whole world. So it will be a template for further such deals with bigger manufacturing nations and areas like Japan and the EU.
    Second, it can only be judged against the yardstick of how far the UK has been forced to grant the US better terms of trade in response to the American president’s gangsterish bullying.
    The prospect of the UK being seen as a net winner from a deal that would abuse the meaning of “free trade” is nil.
    The question, soon to be answered, is how far we have surrendered – on access to the UK for US farmers, on reducing the tax for the likes of Google and Amazon – to save the bacon of our motor and steel manufacturers.
    Politically in the UK for the prime minister I am not sure how it will play out. British voters don’t like Trump. They won’t want Starmer to have capitulated to him.
    The Green party is joining the Liberal Democrats (see 8.05am) in demanding that MPs get a vote on the proposed US-UK trade deal (as well as the UK-India one). The Green MP Ellie Chowns posted this on Bluesky.
    Reports that Labour may scrap the Digital Services Tax to secure a trade deal with Trump are deeply concerning. I’m urging the govt to guarantee MPs get a vote on any such deal. MPs must have a say in decisions that affect our digital economy and ability to tax corporate giants.
    In 2021 the Labour party published a policy paper saying it would give MPs a vote on trade deals. It said:
    We will reform the parliamentary scrutiny of trade agreements, so that MPs have a guaranteed right to debate the proposed negotiating objectives for future trade deals, and a guaranteed vote on the resulting agreements, with sufficient time set aside for detailed scrutiny both of the draft treaty texts, and of accompanying expert analysis on the full range of implications, including for workers’ rights.
    In the Commons, Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has repeatedly pressed Keir Starmer to confirm that he will give MPs a vote on the proposed US-UK trade deal. But Starmer has refused to commit to this. When this last come up, he told Davey: “If [a deal] is secured, it will go through the known procedures for this house.”This was a reference to the CRAG (Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010) process – which does not guarantee MPs get to vote on treaties.Unlike Donald Trump, Keir Starmer does not have his own social media platform. He still uses X, and this morning he has been tweeting, not about the US-UK trade deal, but about the 80th anniversary of VE Day.
    Their victory will always be one of our finest hours.
    Today we come together to celebrate those who fought for our freedom.
    #VEDay80
    He has also posted a link to an article he has written for the Metro about the VE Day generation, and his own grandfather. Here is an extract.
    This is the thing about our greatest generation.
    Not only did they sacrifice so much, they often bore their burden in silence.
    I think of my own grandfather, who fought during the Second World War. We never did find out exactly what he saw. He simply didn’t want to talk about it.
    But this VE Day and every VE Day, we must talk about them. Because without their bravery, the freedom and joy of today’s celebrations may never have come to pass.
    Good morning. I’m Andrew Sparrow, picking up from Martin Belam.Here is a timetable for what we are expecting today. We will be mostly focused on the US-UK trade deal announcement, but there will be some other politics too.9am: Keir Starmer gives a speech at the London defence conference. He is not expected to take questions.9.30am: Steve Reed, the environment secretary, takes questions in the Commons.10.30am: Lucy Powell, the leader of the Commons, takes questions on next week’s Commons business.11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.Noon: Starmer and other political leaders join the king and queen in Westminster Abbey for the service to commemorate the 80th anniversary of VE Day.After 12pm: After the two minutes’ silence to commemorate the 80th anniversary of VE Day, the Bank of England announces its interest rate.After 12pm: John Swinney, Scotland’s first minister, takes questions from MSPs.3pm (UK time): Donald Trump is due to make his announcement in the White House about the US-UK trade deal. He posted this on his Truth Social account earlier.Afternoon: Starmer is expected to make a statement about the trade deal.Defence secretary John Healey has just appeared on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme, where he did not have much to add to his earlier comments about the prospect of a UK-US trade deal, repeating that negotiations had been “hard” and that ministers had refrained from offering a running commentary in order to give negotiators space.He was asked whether ministerial silence on some of the more controversial things Donald Trump’s administration had said or done since coming to office was part of the UK trying to secure a trade deal, and also asked why it did not appear to be “a full deal, as opposed to something responding to tariffs, as it seems to be.”Healey essentially side-stepped those questions, saying “the single purpose of the government is to get a good economic deal. And this discussion reminds us that the US is an indispensable ally for our economic security and our national security.”The Liberal Democrats treasury spokesperson Daisy Cooper has reiterated the party’s position that any trade deal with the US should be put to parliament for approval before being ratified, saying Labour “should not be afraid” of a vote if they are confident a deal is in the country’s best interests.Cooper, the MP for St Albans, said in a statement:
    Parliament must be given a vote on this US trade deal so it can be properly scrutinised.
    A good trade deal with the US could bring huge benefits, but Liberal Democrats are deeply concerned that it may include measures that threaten our NHS, undermine our farmers or give tax cuts to US tech billionaires.
    If the government is confident the agreement it has negotiated with Trump is in Britain’s national interest, it should not be afraid to bring it before MPs.
    Shadow defence secretary James Cartlidge has appeared on Times Radio this morning, and the Conservative MP for South Suffolk said “the devil is in the detail” over prospects for a US-UK trade deal.He told listeners the Conservatives “obviously” would support a deal “in principle”. He continued:
    If it’s correct, and you know, whilst we haven’t been named publicly, it does sound like something’s happening, nevertheless, it would be wholly speculative [to comment].
    As you appreciate and know full well, with any deal like that, the devil is in the detail. What is the nitty gritty? What does it mean for individual sectors and so on.
    So obviously, yes, we wanted to see a trade deal with the US. It’s a big benefit of our position with an independent trade policy since we left the EU but as I say, the devil will be in the details. So should there be an agreement, we would then need to study that in depth.
    Asked by presenter Kate McCann if there was anything the Tories would not want to see in any deal, he said:
    I think if we don’t know at all what’s in it, or even if it’ll definitely happen, I think to try and sort of pre-judge what might or might not be in is not something I’m going to get into respectfully. I totally understand why you’re asking that. I think it’s an incredibly important issue, particularly with the wider challenge of tariffs and so on. I’m a big free trader. Our party wants us to see the UK growing by striking trade deals. But I just think you’ve got to wait and see, because who knows, quite frankly.
    In 2021, then prime minister Boris Johnson said his Conservative government was “going as fast as we can” to secure a post-Brexit trade deal with the US, but the successive administrations of Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak failed to secure one.The defence secretary has said he is confident that UK negotiators will secure “a good deal with the US”, describing the country as “an indispensable ally for our economic security.”John Healey declined to comment on the timing of any update from Keir Starmer, which No 10 said would happen today. Asked whether it was correct that Donald Trump was going to make an announcement at 3pm UK time, and whether Starmer would speak at the same time, Healey said “I don’t account for the movements in Downing Street.”Appearing on Sky News the defence secretary reiterated his lines from an earlier Times Radio interview, saying:
    We’ve been conducting hard negotiations with the US ever since Keir Starmer went to the White House in February, trying to secure any good economic deal for Britain.
    And during that time, I have to say, ministers like me have stepped back and refrained from commenting on those discussions in order to give the negotiators the space to secure the best possible deal for Britain. So any live discussions or timelines really aren’t for me.
    He was pressed on Sky News on whether a US trade deal would have repercussions for the NHS, farm workers and steelworkers in the UK. He said:
    I’m not going to comment on potential content of any economic deal or timelines. What I will say is that for steelworkers like those in sconthorpe, they’ve seen now a UK Government, a Labour government, willing to step in to secure the future of their industry.
    And as defence secretary, you know, I’m going to make sure that the increased defence spending that we will use to secure our defence for the future also brings a premium – a dividend, if you like – and is measured in more British jobs, more British apprentices, more successful British firms right across the country.
    Keir Starmer will give an update on the prospects for a UK-US trade deal later today, it has been announced.PA Media reports a Number 10 spokesperson said:
    The prime minister will always act in Britain’s national interest – for workers, for business, for families. The US is an indispensable ally for both our economic and national security. Talks on a deal between our countries have been continuing at pace and the prime minister will update later today.
    Defence secretary John Healey is appearing on Sky News at the moment, speaking from Westminster ahead of VE Day commemorations later today.He has already appeared earlier on Times Radio, where he was coy about commenting on the prospects for a UK-US trade deal. PA Media report he told listeners of that station:
    It’s certainly true that the US is an indispensable ally for the UK, both on economic and national security grounds. It’s also true that since the prime minister visited the White House in February we have been in detailed talks about an economic deal.
    But I have to say, throughout that period, ministers like me have been keen to give the negotiations the space to get the best possible deal for the UK. So, we just haven’t been giving a running commentary on developments or timelines, so I’m not going to start now.
    In the morning Politico newsletter, Andrew McDonald makes the following point worth bearing in mind. He writes:
    This was never meant to be a comprehensive free trade agreement (FTA) with the US, of the sort that previous Tory governments tried and failed to win. Instead, this had been pitched by UK officials as a narrow economic pact to avoid tariffs and work together on AI and critical tech. How narrow or otherwise, we should know soon.
    Here is our earlier report from my colleague Hugo Lowell in Washington …Labour’s defence secretary John Healey and the Conservative shadow defence secretary James Cartlidge are on the media round this morning. They are likely to be questioned about the prospects for a US-UK trade deal announcement, as well as the conflict this week in Kashmir. I’ll bring you the key lines that emerge.In its report suggesting that a trade deal between the US and UK would be the subject of Donald Trump’s promised announcement, the New York Times quotes Timothy C Brightbill, an international trade attorney at Wiley Rein, who suggested any announcement would consist of “an agreement to start the negotiations, identifying a framework of issues to be discussed in the coming months.“We suspect that tariff rates, non-tariff barriers and digital trade are all on the list –and there are difficult issues to address on all of these,” he added.The UK government is likely to have in its sights a reduction in the 25% tariff on automobile sales that the Trump administration imposed. That has led to some British manufacturers pausing shipments across the Atlantic.A team of senior British trade negotiators is in Washington in the hopes of seucuring the trade deal. Last night, government sources said the recent announcement by the US president, Donald Trump, of film industry tariffs had proved a significant setback.One person briefed on the talks said: “We have a senior team on the ground now, and it may be that they are able to agree something this week. But the reality is the Trump administration keeps shifting the goalposts, as you saw with this week’s announcement on film tariffs.”Another said Trump’s threat of 100% tariffs on films “produced in foreign lands”, which could have a major impact on Britain’s film industry, had “gone down very badly in Downing Street”.UK officials say they are targeting tariff relief on a narrow range of sectors in order to get a deal agreed before they begin formal negotiations with the EU over a separate European agreement. A draft deal handed to the US a week ago would have reduced tariffs on British exports of steel, aluminium and cars, in return for a lower rate of the digital services tax, which is paid by a handful of large US technology companies.Officials from the trade department hoped to reach an agreement on two outstanding issues, pharmaceuticals and films. Trump has said he will impose tariffs on both industries, mainstays of the British economy, but has not yet given details.Keir Starmer has ruled out reducing food production standards to enable more trade of US agricultural products, as officials prioritise signing a separate agreement with the EU, which is likely to align British standards with European ones.Donald Trump is expected to announce the framework of a trade agreement with the UK after teasing a major announcement with a “big and highly respected, country.”The specifics of any agreement were not immediately clear and there was no comment from the White House or the British embassy in Washington on whether an actual deal had been reached or if the framework would need further negotiation. Any agreement would mark the first such deal for the administration since it imposed sweeping tariffs against trade partners last month.In a post on Truth Social previewing the announcement, Trump was vague and did not disclose the country or the terms.“Big news conference tomorrow morning at 10:00am, the Oval Office, concerning a MAJOR TRADE DEAL WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF A BIG, AND HIGHLY RESPECTED, COUNTRY. THE FIRST OF MANY!!!” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social. More

    More stories

    • 150 Shares198 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump tariffs to hit small farms in Maga heartlands hardest, analysis predicts

      by

      The winners and losers of Trump’s first tariff war strongly suggest that bankruptcies and farm consolidation could surge during his second term, with major corporations best placed to benefit from his polices at the expense of independent farmers.New analysis by the non-profit research advocacy group Food and Water Watch (FWW), shared exclusively with the Guardian, shows that Trump’s first-term tariffs were particularly devastating for farmers in the Maga rural heartlands.Farm bankruptcies surged by 24% from 2018 to 2019 – the highest number in almost a decade – as retaliatory tariffs cost US farmers a staggering $27bn.Numbers of farms fell at the highest rate in two decades with the smallest operations (one to nine acres) hardest hit, declining by 14% between 2017 and 2022. Meanwhile, the number of farms earning $2.5m to $5m more than doubled.Losses from the first-term trade war were mostly concentrated in the midwest due to the region’s focus on export commodities such as corn, soy and livestock that are heavily reliant on China. States with more diverse agricultural sectors such as California and Florida experienced lower rates of insolvency and export declines than in previous years, suggesting the trade war played a role, according to Trump’s Last Tariff Tantrum: A Warning.The breakdown in closures suggests that Trump’s $28bn tariff bailout package in 2018-19 disproportionately benefited mega-farms while smaller-scale farms and minority farmers were left behind.The top tenth of recipients received 54% of all taxpayer bailout funds. The top 1% received on average $183,331 while the bottom 80% got less than $5,000 each, according to previous analysis.The number of Black farmers fell by 8% between 2017 and 2022, while white farmer numbers declined by less than 1%.View image in fullscreen“President Trump’s first-term trade war hurt independent farmers and benefited corporations, offering a warning of what is to come without a plan to help farmers adjust,” said Ben Murray, senior researcher at FWW.“Trump’s latest slap-dash announcements will likely further undermine US farmers while benefiting multinationals who can easily shift production abroad to avoid high tariffs. Farmers’ livelihoods should not be used as a foreign policy bargaining chip. Chaotic tariff tantrums are no way to run US farm policy.”The first 100 days of Trump 2.0 have led to turmoil and uncertainty for consumers, producers and the markets, amid an extraordinary mix of threats, confusing U-turns and retaliatory tariffs from trading partners.Trump’s second trade war could prove even more damaging for US farmers and rural communities, as it comes on top of dismantling of agencies, funds and Biden-era policies to help farmers adapt to climate shocks, tackle racist inequalities and strengthen regional food markets. By the end of April, more than $6bn of promised federal funds had been frozen or terminated, according to the National Sustainable Agriculture Association’s tracker.Rural counties rallied behind Trump in 2024, giving him a majority in all but 11 of the 444 farming-dependent counties, according to analysis by Investigate Midwest.Last week, the agriculture secretary, Brooke Rollins, played down the likely harm to Trump’s farmer base, but said the administration was preparing a contingency bailout plan if farmers are hurt by escalating trade wars. “We are working on that. We are preparing for it. We don’t believe it will be necessary,” Rollins told Fox News. “We are out across the world, right now, opening up new markets.”US farm policy has long incentivized large-scale monocropping of export commodities such as wheat, corn, soy, sorghum, rice, cotton – and industrial animal farming – rather than production for domestic consumption. This globalized agricultural system favors large and corporate-owned operations, while undermining small, diversified farms and regional food systems. It is a system inextricably tied to global commodity markets, and therefore extremely vulnerable to trade wars.The 2018-19 bailout payments were set up in a way that, inadvertently perhaps, “subsidized, encouraged and promoted” the loss of smaller and mid-size farms to the benefit of mega-farms – in large part because the tariffs were implemented without a coherent plan to reform US farm policy and help farmers transition to domestic markets.The number of large farms – those earning more than $500,000 – grew by 18% between 2017 and 2022. “The taxpayers are essentially being asked to subsidize farm consolidation,” the Environmental Working Group said at the time.Trump’s first-term tariffs hit soybean farmers, who are highly dependent on China, hardest, with exports slumping 74% in 2018 from the previous year. The number of soybean farms fell almost 11% between 2017 and 2022 – a significant turn of fortune given the 9% rise over the previous decade. In fact, the only winners after Trump’s trade war were big farms, those harvesting at least 1,000 acres of soybeans, the FWW analysis found.The 2018/19 tariff bailout package was also used to facilitate contracts and commodity purchases. A significant share went to the billion-dollar corporations which already have a stranglehold on the US food system, and rural communities.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionArkansas-headquartered Tyson Foods received almost $29m in federal contracts and purchases between August 2018 and July 2019, while Brazil-based JBS secured nearly $78m. JBS used its market power to undercut competition, winning over a quarter of the total $300m in taxpayer dollars allocated towards federal pork purchases, according to FWW.The two multinationals currently control 40% to 50% of the US beef market, 45% of poultry and, along with two other corporations, 70% of the pork market.Things could be even worse under Trump 2.0, with the president no longer seeming concerned by the markets or the polls.John Boyd Jr, a fourth-generation Black farmer, has been unable to secure a farm operating loan since Trump’s tariffs sent commodity prices tumbling. USDA field offices that help farmers apply for credit and government subsidies, which Black, Native and other minority farmers were already disproportionately denied, are being closed in the name of efficiency.View image in fullscreen“This administration is putting the heads of Black farmers on the chopping block and ridiculing us in public with no oversight and no pushback from Congress,” said Boyd, president and founder of the National Black Farmers Association, who farms soy, wheat, corn and beef in Virginia. “Trump’s tariffs are a recipe for complete disaster, and this time his voters in red states will also get punched in the face.”Trump 2.0 tariffs against China are higher and broader, and also target scores of other agricultural trading partners. China is better prepared, having diversified its import markets to Brazil and other Latin American countries since Trump’s first trade war, while US domestic farm policy has barely changed.“The administration seems completely blind to the harm that was done previously, and in many ways what’s happening now is already worse … The concern is that trades are stalled and nothing’s really flowing,” said Ben Lilliston, director of rural strategies and climate change at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy.In late April, China cancelled a 12,000-tonne order of US pork – the largest cancellation since the start of the Covid pandemic, suggesting Trump’s tariff war is already sabotaging trade.“The lesson from last time is we didn’t get the money to the right farmers. But the longer-term lesson is that the US lost credibility in trade. US Secretary Rollins is going overseas to try to open up export markets but they seem to be in deep denial right now about the harm that’s already been done to these relationships,” Lilliston said.A USDA spokesperson said: “President Trump is putting farmers first and will ensure our farmers are treated fairly by our trading partners. The administration has not determined whether a farmer support program will be needed at this time. Should a program need to be implemented in the future, the department’s goal will always be to benefit farms of all sizes.”JBS, Tyson and the American Farm Bureau Federation, a lobby group, have been contacted for comment. More

    • 200 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Shock to the system’: farmers hit by Trump’s tariffs and cuts say they need another bailout

      by

      Farmers across the United States say they could face financial ruin – unless there is a huge taxpayer-funded bailout to compensate for losses generated by Donald Trump’s sweeping cuts and chaotic tariffs.Small- and medium-sized farms were already struggling amid worsening climate shocks and volatile commodities markets, on top of being squeezed by large corporations that dominate the supply chain.In recent weeks, farmers in Texas and across the midwest have suffered millions of dollars of crop losses due to unprecedented heavy rainfall and flooding.The climate crisis-fueled extreme weather is compounded by the US president’s looming trade war and the administration targeting popular federal programs and staff, leaving farmers reeling and resigned to needing another bailout.“There’s a lot of uncertainty around and I hate to be used as a bargaining chip. I am definitely worried,” said Travis Johnson, who lost more than 1,000 acres of cotton, sorghum and corn after a year’s rain fell within 48 hours in the Rio Grande Valley (RGV) in southern Texas last month, turning parched fields into lakes.RGV farmers sell sorghum, wheat, corn and vegetables to Mexico among other crops, while buying fertilizer and equipment – and relying on Mexican farmhands for cheap labor. Mexico is the US’s largest trading partner, while China is the main buyer of American sorghum and cotton. All US products destined for China face a 125% tax thanks to Trump’s tariff war, and could cut farmers off from core markets.View image in fullscreen“I can see how some tariffs might help us compete with Mexico but are we really getting targeted by every other country or are we on the wrong side of this? We’ve already had two years of absolute disaster with falling prices and weather patterns … no farmer wants this but without a bailout this could be devastating and a lot more people could go under,” Johnson said.Rural counties rallied behind Trump in 2024, giving him a majority in all but 11 of the 444 farming-dependent counties last year, averaging 78% support, according to analysis by Investigate Midwest.Trump’s vote share rose among farming communities, despite his last trade war which required a $23bn taxpayer bailout for farmers in 2018-19.Yet anxiety is mounting among the agricultural base.First came widespread cuts to oversubscribed and chronically underfunded federal climate and conservation schemes designed to reduce costs and greenhouse gases, and improve yields and environmental health.Trump is also shuttering local food programs which provide farmers with stable domestic markets like public school districts and food banks, helping make farms more resilient to global economic shocks. The USAID, which purchased about $2bn every year in agricultural products particularly wheat, sorghum and lentils for humanitarian aid programs, has been dismantled.The loss in federal programs alone would have been tough to cope with, but then came the trade chaos. Trump’s tariff announcements began when most farmers already had spring crops in the ground – or at the very least had prepared the land and purchased inputs such as seeds and pesticides, making it impossible to switch to crops that could potentially find a market domestically.View image in fullscreenConsensus is growing among experts that the turmoil represents an opportunity for rival agriculture economies – and disaster for US farmers.“It’s all happening so fast and in the middle of the growing season, it’s a shock to the system that’s going to be tough for farmers, especially those growing commodities for export,” said Ben Lilliston, director of rural strategies and climate change at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP). “Tariffs are not magical, they need to be used strategically as part of wider reforms to the domestic economic agenda.”“The volatility of the tariff policy decisions, with new tariffs frequently being announced, paused and placed will take a toll on the American agricultural industry,” writes economist Betty Resnick in an article for Farm Bureau, a right-leaning lobby group. “Without direct support from USDA or a farm bill with an updated safety net, farmers will almost certainly bear the brunt of these tariffs.”Ben Murray, senior researcher with the consumer advocacy group Food and Water Watch, said: “Without a bailout, we can only imagine how bad this will be for farmers and what an opportunity for Brazil – and this is all being done for a tax cut for the wealthy.”For decades now, US farmers have been heavily incentivized through the Farm Bill to grow commodity crops destined for export such as wheat, corn, soy, sorghum, rice and cotton, rather than produce for domestic consumption. The price of commodities is tied to the global market, even if sold domestically. Meanwhile US imports of fruits and vegetables mostly from Latin America have risen, now accounting for more than 50% of consumption, according to USDA data.This globalized agricultural system favors large and corporate-owned operations, as smaller farms struggle more with boom and bust prices, and access to government subsidies and other credit. The number of farms continues to decline, while the average size continues to rise. Market consolidation and corporate profits tend to surge in the agriculture industry after every economic shock including the Covid pandemic, Trump’s last trade war and the banking crisis.Biden implemented a range of modest, imperfect policies to try to ease the pain for smaller-scale farmers including a greater focus on anti-trust, local and regional food systems, and climate resilience – all of which are under attack by the Trump administration.The vast majority of a $19.5bn funding package by the Biden administration for evidence-based conservation practices that improve soil health, air quality and reduce the use of costly fertilizers, pesticides and water will not be honored. The 10-year fund allocated through the Inflation Reduction Act was an addendum to money ring-fenced in the Farm Bill for four oversubscribed programs, after years of pressure from farmers to expand access to the initiatives.Two Biden-era healthy eating schemes worth a combined $1bn to local farmers have been canceled: the Local Food Purchase Assistance (LFPA) program matching producers to food banks, and the Local Food for Schools Cooperative Agreement Program which helped public schools add healthy, locally grown produce on to lunch menus. (The USDA recently agreed to unfreeze funding for existing contracts.)View image in fullscreen“My farm will survive because we’ve been working with school districts for 20 years, but for others in our coalition the funding cliff is very real,” said Anna Knight, who owns an 80-acre citrus farm in southern California.Piling on further misery are mass layoffs within the USDA that were seemingly orchestrated by the billionaire Trump donor Elon Musk.More than 10% of USDA staff have already reportedly agreed to voluntary buyouts, with more expected in coming weeks. This is in addition to several thousand probationary employees who were laid off last month – a move which disproportionately hit local offices beefed up under the Biden administration, and is being challenged in the courts.USDA field offices play a crucial role in rural communities, the place where farmers go for tailor-made technical help from agencies including the National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) and the Farm Service Agency (FSA) on the latest pest control and planting practices, conservation programs, loans and disaster assistance programs.“It makes no sense taking billions of dollars off the table for programs that improve long-term farm viability and resilience – and which farmers have been lining up for years for – and then spend billions bringing back farmers from financial collapse,” said Jesse Womack, policy expert at the National Sustainable Agricultural Coalition. “It’s looking really bleak with a lot of pain ahead for farmers.”A coalition of environmental and agricultural groups is suing the USDA after it purged an array of climate-related online resources including information on the NRCS website helping farmers access federal grants for conservation practices, and technical guidance on cutting emissions and strengthening resilience to extreme weather like floods and drought.Even if there is a bailout, getting the money to farmers in time to avoid bankruptcy will be much more complicated this time, according to Lilliston from IATP.“Another bailout seems inevitable but there are serious questions about how quickly it could be implemented with such a dysfunctional Congress, local USDA offices shuttered and fewer staff. It’s a very messy situation and farmers are already experiencing harm.”And in the medium and long term: “The US reputation has taken a huge hit. We can no longer be considered a reliable trading partner which is terrible for farmers,” added Lilliston.Even before the current mayhem, almost two-thirds of US rural bankers surveyed in March expected farmer income to decline in 2025, with farm equipment sales dropping for the 19th straight month, according to the latest Rural Mainstreet Economy survey by Creighton University. Grain and cotton prices have plummeted since 2022.View image in fullscreen“We were already in a precarious situation but now, unless there’s a bailout or this trade war is resolved by harvest time, it will be disastrous and a critical mass of farmers could go out of business,” said Adam Chappell, 46, a commodities farmer growing corn, cotton, soybean and rice in Arkansas, where dozens of local USDA staff have reportedly been furloughed or fired in recent weeks.Chappell’s town Cotton Plant was hit with 13in of rain in early April, causing crop losses for many farmers. Chappell’s fields survived the rain but he spent a nervous few weeks after the USDA froze all conservation funds, unsure whether the government would reimburse him, as agreed, for an upfront investment in cover crops and a compost operation. Eventually, after a backlash, the administration backtracked and agreed to honor existing contracts.“The weather is getting stranger and more challenging to deal with every year, while big monopoly corporations are allowed to manipulate the system and squeeze us at every part of the supply chain. Farmers like me lean heavily on the NRCS conservation programs to improve soil health and reduce input costs,” said Chappell. “The tariffs are like adding salt on the wound.”Despite last week’s partial U-turn, Trump’s ongoing and increasingly chaotic trade war risks causing irreparable harm to international markets for farmers, especially but not exclusively China, as well as pushing up the cost of agricultural imports such as pesticides, fertilizer and machinery.China is the US’s third biggest agricultural export market, worth $24.7bn in 2024, down 15% from 2023, as soybean, corn and sorghum sales fell amid rising competition from South America, according to USDA data. China’s top imports from the US are oilseeds and grains. US exports to China supported almost a million US jobs in 2022, according to the US-China Business Council, mostly around agriculture and livestock production.As of Friday, at least 15 agricultural department programs worth billions of dollars to American farmers and rural communities remain frozen, according to Politico, more than two months after they were halted for review to ensure compliance with Trump’s priorities opposing diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) efforts as well as his crackdown on climate change initiatives.This includes the Biden-era partnerships for climate-smart commodities (PCSC) program – a five-year $3.2bn real-life study into the effectiveness of conservation practices such as cover cropping and reduced tillage for commodity farms.“PSCS was about increasing our evidence base on climate benefits that also help commodity farmers improve soil health, air and water quality – and their bottom line,” said Omanjana Goswami, a scientist with the food and environment program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “Abandoning this will come at a cost to American farms and the taxpayer.”On Monday, the agriculture secretary, Brooke Rollins, defended dismantling PSCS, claiming it amounted to a Biden-era “climate slush fund” of which less than half the money went to farmers.A spokesperson added: “The USDA has a variety of programs available to producers who have been impacted by recent disasters … [and] is currently building a framework to deliver over $20bn in congressionally appropriated funds to producers who suffered losses during the 2023/2024 crop year. With 16 robust nutrition programs in place, USDA remains focused on its core mission: strengthening food security, supporting agricultural markets, and ensuring access to nutritious food.”And some Trump supporters are keeping the faith.“There are some concerns out there but our farmers are willing to make sacrifices for long-term gains,” said Sid Miller, the Texas agriculture commissioner. “Tariffs are a temporary tool, they won’t be permanent, China needs our grains, they are prideful but will come around like last time.” More

    • 200 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Our lives depend on seeds. Trump’s cuts put our vast reserves at risk | Thor Hanson

      by

      From 1862 until 1923, US senators and members of Congress provided vast numbers of seeds to constituents. At its peak, the congressional seed distribution program delivered over 60m seed packets directly to farmers and market gardeners every year, helping introduce new varieties of everything from wheat and corn to oats, soybeans, flowers and vegetables. A century later, far fewer Americans till the soil for a living, but seeds remain central to our lives.To understand the importance of seeds, try to imagine a morning without them. It would begin naked on a bare mattress, with no cozy sheets or pajamas, and there would be no fluffy towel to wrap up in after your shower. All of those things come from the seeds of the cotton plant. Stumbling wet into the kitchen, you would find no coffee, and no toast or bagel to go with it. There would be no eggs, no bacon, no cereal, no milk. All of those staples come from seeds or from livestock raised on seed crops. And if you thought you might console yourself with a chocolate bar, you can forget it. Cocoa powder, and the cocoa butter that makes it melt in your mouth, are both derived from seeds.Maintaining the seed diversity and abundance we rely on requires constant development of new varieties to combat disease, increase production and adapt to changing conditions. Seed advances are particularly urgent now, as farmers confront the fickle weather of a warming planet while working to meet a projected 50-60% rise in global food demand by 2050. Although elected officials no longer send out seeds through the mail, federal support for these efforts remains vital.In the era of Doge, that support has been flipped on its head.The US Department of Agriculture employs many plant breeders directly and funds many more through grants and partnerships, but the crown jewel of its seed program resides in a bunker-like building in Fort Collins, Colorado. The national seed bank houses more than 2bn carefully preserved specimens in a facility designed to withstand floods, fires, earthquakes, power outages and tornadoes. With over 620,000 varieties from nearly 17,000 different species, it is one of the world’s largest seed collections and a major supplier to the global seed vault in Svalbard, Norway.It is also at risk.While words like “vault” and “bank” imply simply turning the key and walking away, managing a seed collection demands constant activity. Even in cold storage, the specimens steadily degrade and must be tested regularly to make sure they’re still viable. When germination rates drop for any particular sample, those seeds must be planted and grown to maturity – in the right conditions – to produce a fresh supply. That activity takes place at over 20 research stations in locations (and climates) as diverse as North Dakota, Texas, California, Hawaii and Puerto Rico.Known officially as the US National Plant Germplasm System, the seed bank and its network of regional facilities recently lost 10% of their workforce in the Doge firings, including farm managers, research scientists, lab technicians, IT specialists, orchardists and more. Some have since been rehired, at least temporarily, but the program remains in turmoil. Projects interrupted or suspended range from germination trials to seed regeneration, research lending and many longterm breeding programs, weakening the entire enterprise.Plants don’t wait on politics. Any seed varieties lost now will simply be unavailable to improve crops and address challenges in the future. The importance of a robust and diverse seed bank cannot be overstated. To combat the invasive Russian wheat aphid, for example, plant breeders screened over 54,000 wheat and barley samples to find a handful of precious strains with natural resistance.It’s time for Congress to return to the seed business. Without its intervention, backed by the courts, additional firings appear imminent. Undermining the nation’s seed security undermines its food security and embodies the definition of reckless: “utterly unconcerned about consequences”.For those in the seed world, that attitude is hard to fathom. After all, planting a seed is always about what comes next, a conscious act of forethought and optimism. In other words, an act of hope.

      Thor Hanson is a biologist and author whose books include The Triumph of Seeds and Close to Home. More

    • 163 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Black farmers face setbacks over Trump budget cuts: ‘We are in survival mode’

      by

      For the last several weeks, Jocelyn Germany has been asking herself “is it safe for us to exist” as Black farmers?, since US Department of Agriculture cuts have put her work in jeopardy.Germany is the farmer advocate of Farm School NYC (FSNYC), an urban agriculture education center focused on food sovereignty and social, economic and racial justice. About 85% of Farm School NYC’s funding comes from the US Department of Agriculture (USDA).The center was in the process of launching a New York City-wide pilot initiative focused on food justice, crop management and urban farming advocacy. But National Institute of Food and Agriculture’s (NIFA) $300,000 community food projects grant that would have funded it was terminated, effective immediately. Forced to scramble, FSNYC scaled down the programming and adopted a sliding scale for tuition.The cuts affected other plans, including public courses on food stewardship. Funding that would have allowed the center to distribute mini grants and grow community capacity has also been paused. FSNYC recently discussed cutting some of its own employee benefits to free up resources for the now affected programming. “Our main goal is to keep Farm School in operation,” Germany said.The impact of USDA cuts has rippled through farming and agriculture communities, which are mobilizing to stanch the damage. Farm School NYC is part of the Black Farmer Fund, a consortium of Bipoc-led/owned farms and entities that work on agricultural policy and strengthening local food systems throughout the north-east. The group was founded to share resources in an already difficult funding environment; rather than compete with each other, they collaborate on joint fundraising and programming.Now, they share an estimated $1.2m gap due to defunding. For Farm School NYC and Black Farmers United – New York State (BFU-NYS), the USDA’s termination or freezing of National Institute of Food and Agriculture grants and Natural Resources Conservation Service contracts put programs and salaries at risk.“We are in survival mode,” Germany said. Over the past year, Farm School NYC began taking baby steps to transition some of its funding away from government dollars, but “the sudden defunding was not the way we wanted to do it”, added Germany.Made up of growers, advocates and food educators, BFU-NYS just became an independent organization after being a fiscally sponsored project under Farm School NYC. It lost a five-year, $660,000 contract with the USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service agency. The contract was to fund three annual statewide “Bridging Land, Agriculture, and Communities” conferences, with the inaugural one planned for April.About a week after Donald Trump’s inauguration, Black Farmers United got an email explaining that because their work fell under diversity, equity and inclusion programming, the USDA would end their contract. This year’s conference was canceled, but BFU-NYS plans to host one in 2026 with or without government funding. The organization is seeking private donors to make that happen.The abrupt withdrawal of funding has left the organization holding the bag for an event that was just around the corner – and all its costs. “We have done the background work, got participating partners, submitted deposits and signed contracts,” said Dr Kuturie Rouse, BFU-NYS’s executive director of development.The organization is now unable to reimburse full-time staff for extra time spent coordinating the conference or recoup the cost of supplies. On top of that, BFU-NYS must pay vendors and other collaborators despite no longer having the USDA money or this year’s conference itself. “The organization is already at a loss,” Rouse said.BFU-NYS also lost its Green Futures program. The program helps young adults battle food insecurity, establish community gardens and pursue agriculture as a career. Last year, it launched a pilot program with a South Bronx middle school where students grew watermelon, callaloo, lettuce and other fruits and vegetables. The students then gave that food to their school cafeteria to feed the student body. BFU-NHYS now hopes to partner with other local schools to continue and grow the initiative.Aside from the loss of money and programming, Rouse said that the mental health of BFU-NYS staff had taken a hit. After the inauguration, staff were bombarded with racist emails and social media comments. “It was hate mail just because of our name and who we support and sponsor.” He clarified that while “Black” is on the organization’s name and it focuses on communities of color, it is a nondiscriminatory organization that “work[s] with any and everyone”.And, at this extremely critical and stressful time, mental health support from another ecosystem partner will not happen. The Northeast Farmers of Color Land Trust (NEFOC) supports climate stewardship and regenerative farming. It also serves as an incubator for several regional land projects. Christine Hutchinson, a founding board member of the land trust, shared that a $200,000 collaborative program focused on farmers’ mental health from Maine to Delaware was now on hold indefinitely. NEFOC is one of several organizations that contributed to it. “People are really rocked,” Hutchinson said.It’s been difficult for Monti Lawson, the founder of the Catalyst Collaborative Farm, to see so much funding halted because he encouraged many farmers and other partners to take advantage of these USDA programs. The farm, which invites queer and Bipoc people to the land to farm and organize, offers many free, donation-based or sliding-scale events – all possible due to previous funding. “For government and even philanthropy, QTBipoc was a very sexy word,” Lawson said.Lawson has been connecting with past funders and community members. “In this particular moment, there are so many people who are reaching out, trying to be comforted, trying to be connected to others,” Lawson said.The land trust’s Hutchinson pointed out that the impact of defunding will vary. “A larger farm in a different place has access to resources that our farmers just don’t have access to,” Hutchinson said. Farmers from Northeast Farmers of Color Land Trust are already starting with lower levels of federal support, and their capacity to replace those funds will probably be much lower. Meanwhile, farming organizations are trying to document what is happening as funding evaporates. The Hudson Valley Young Farmers Coalition, of which Lawson is a part, is collecting New York-based farmer testimonials to track the impact of cuts. The National Young Farmers Coalition is doing the same across the country.On the ground, though, the Black Farming Fund members and other agricultural organizations are trying to secure funding and their futures. In mid-February, Farm School NYC launched an emergency fundraiser to meet its severe funding gap, support its scholarship fund, launch revamped courses and pay farmer facilitators. Thus far, it has raised $750.The precarity of federal funding has the consortium’s members looking elsewhere for funding. Farm School NYC has been assembling advocacy toolkits and helping facilitate contact with legislators. BFU-NYS recently launched a mobilization strategy that includes prioritizes funding from state and local government. Rouse noted that one of the non-profit’s biggest supporters is New York State representative Khaleel Anderson, who chairs the state’s food and farming nutrition policy taskforce. Through Anderson’s support, BFU-NYS has had its own line item in the New York state budget for the past three years. Right now, Anderson is pushing for Black Farmers United to get increased support. BFU also wants to tap into New York City council discretionary dollars to fund local initiatives such as its Green Futures program and social responsibility grants from businesses that remain committed to diversity and inclusion.Some advocates believe that now is the time for those with power and privilege to march on the streets and that QTBipoc, immigrant and food justice communities – often on the frontlines – should take a step back.One of the first things longtime food justice advocate Karen Washington did was put out a call on her LinkedIn, asking her network to donate to cover the funding gap. Washington is co-founder of Rise & Root Farm in Orange county, New York.“There are foundations, hedge funds, venture capital groups, and Wall Street executives who can write a check in an instant without losing a cent.” In an interview, she asked: “Where are the people that voted for this? Where is the outrage?” More

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Why I quit my homestead dream just as farmer tradwives became mainstream

      by

      Our homesteading experiment began before tradwives, before Donald Trump, before Covid-19. It was the summer of 2015 when we were all sure no one would vote for a former reality TV star. I was 25 years old and desperate for a security blanket, working a sales job and looking for excuses not to return to college.My husband, Patrick, and I had talked about farming since our first date. We wanted goats. At his 2-acre property in a quiet suburb of Portland, Maine, we kept a few chickens and a scrawny vegetable garden.One morning, Patrick texted me: “I found the place. You’re going to love it. It’s uber cute.”Ninety-three acres in midcoast Maine, with an abandoned farmhouse and huge barn. Overgrown fields, alders encroaching across a pool of fetid swamp water to scratch against the door, no floor in the kitchen, and a single pipe gravity-feeding spring water from the mountain side. A three-hole outhouse was the extent of the plumbing.It was perfect.View image in fullscreen“What’s your end goal, man?” asked Patrick’s old college roommate. “What are you imagining in five years? Her barefoot and pregnant in the garden?”It was 2015 and you could still buy a piece of rural heaven for less than a small fortune – if you were willing to put in some sweat equity. We put a deposit down on some goats and signed our mortgage.Back-to-the-land wasn’t a political statement then. Sure, your urban friends would think you’d lost it, but not in an anti-vax, don’t-tread-on-me way. I had no desire to be barefoot, nor pregnant. But we were still in the honeymoon phase of our relationship, and building a life together from scratch had its romantic draw.I told myself I was sucking the marrow out of life, as Henry David Thoreau had once done. I even wore a T-shirt that said “Resistance is Fertile”. I thought of homesteading as an overtly political – even rebellious – act.Homesteading was in my blood. My mother had gone back-to-the-land with her first husband in the early 1970s, inspired by Helen and Scott Nearing, hippie icons who taught a generation to “live simply and sanely in a troubled world” with their book, Living the Good Life (1954). Scott Nearing was an outspoken pacifist, communist and protester. He and his wife, Helen, ate raw foods, tended their own land and railed against capitalism long before there were TikTok trends on the subject.Before my mother moved to Maine, she went to her grandparents to share the news of her move. They had grown up on a hardscrabble Missouri farm during the dust bowl. They had moved to town for a reliable job and to give their deaf daughter, my grandmother, the opportunity to study.When my mother told Daddy Kays, as she knew him, about her plans to go rural, he was horrified. Why do you want to do that? he asked. Why would anyone choose to go back to subsistence living? Why did my mother insist on denying what my great grandfather saw as progress?My mother left her homestead in the late 1980s. She moved to town to provide a better education for her young daughters, to seek more stable employment, and to leave a Sisyphean list of chores. By this time, many homesteaders were joining her in shifting back to a less isolated existence.The few who remained largely credited not a deeper sense of political motivation, but a strong community. Where homesteaders had gathered in groups, they seemed to remain. The Nearings had cultivated a following of interns and volunteers who showed up each year and had gradually settled around their homestead in Harborside, Maine. To this day, that area remains a haven for self-sufficient living.It could never be said that Patrick and I did things halfway. For two years, we showered outside in the negative temperatures and biting winds of a Maine winter. We preserved our harvests, bottle fed baby goats, raised pigs and chickens and geese and sheep. Patrick rebuilt our entire home from the studs. Fields were cleared and hayed to feed our animals. All of our equipment came from barters, trades and Craigslist. For what we couldn’t find a good deal on, we made do. Our lives revolved around the movement of firewood, without which we would freeze in winter.View image in fullscreenI wrote a book on our lifestyle – So You Want to Be a Modern Homesteader? – and shared our journey on social media. Through this outreach we connected with others making a similar leap, a community that was tiny and fringe before the interest in rural living sparked during the pandemic and ensuing lockdowns. We greeted each other, in person and online, with the excitement of people into some shared niche hobby. We troubleshot problems, speculated on livestock choices and traded sourdough starters.Even before terms such as “tradwife” became popular, I noticed remarkable consistency in our homesteading friends. When a couple would show up at our farm to buy a goat or lamb, they’d bundle out of their unblemished Volvos with a snot-nosed toddler swaddled in one car seat in the back, the other car seat occupied by a sleeping infant. The mother would have kind, slightly confused eyes and an instant attraction to animals. The men were bearded, in lumberjack plaid.It got to the point I would joke that I could not tell my friends’ husbands apart, so uniform was their charcoal facial hair. The men always knew what they were doing: brimming with the self confidence of someone who recently read Everything I Want to Do is Illegal, possessed of at least one scheme to provide for his family while living off the land.After five years, our routine was set. The farmhouse had electricity and running water. We’d cleared the fields and put in a farm pond. Every spring we welcomed a new batch of goat kids and lambs that we sold, we milked our goats and sheared our sheep. We turned over our land sustainably using pigs, and we collected dozens upon dozens of eggs every day from the chickens, ducks and geese.View image in fullscreenWe were also very tired. We fell into bed every night exhausted, and woke up and did it again. There was little time for hobbies outside of running the farm, and less for intimacy. There was no time for travel – even going down the coast to see our parents had to be planned and limited to a few hours out of the day. When we did have time to sit together, we bickered about chores and finances strained by hungry animals. The addition of an indoor shower did little to remove the grime that stuck in our emotions.Faced with exhaustion and burnout, for a few years we tried to downsize, to reverse out of our headlong rush into self-sufficiency. To make time for occasional date nights and rest, we tried to sell a few animals here and there, but the chores still piled up.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThen in late 2019, Patrick’s son died unexpectedly. In the onslaught of grief, we had to manage feeding dozens of animals and moving firewood in for the winter. Have you ever had to make sure that a funeral would be over in time for evening chores?Soon after, Covid arrived. Within the online homesteading community, jokes made the rounds about how well positioned for a pandemic we were: we did not need supply chains or contact with the outside world to thrive. And yet there is a difference between choosing to stay at home on the farm and having to, particularly when the farm is wrapped in a thick cloak of sorrow.By the end of the first year of the pandemic, we were ready to get off the farm. And then our entire flock of more than a hundred birds succumbed to bird flu, which at the time was a new avian disaster. Our abundant flock of friends and entertainers disappeared overnight, culled in the wake of a burgeoning pandemic.Community can save a homestead from failing under this kind of stress. But as we tended to our tragedies, the community around us had shifted.People had started making careers out of being influencers and content creators. The homesteading world was no less full of social media personalities than the rest of the internet. And when Covid lockdowns hit in 2020, anyone who was online talking about self-sufficiency had an opportunity. Those of us who had shared our homesteading journeys since we first shot up on Instagram’s algorithm in 2013 were getting phone calls from places including the New York Times asking us about our lifestyle. Our follower counts had exploded. We – the fringes, the freaks – were the popular kids now.Leaning in to the popularity of from-scratch living was a recipe for success. Hannah Neeleman’s Ballerina Farm, once home to rough-and-ready farm life and now curated to a perfect prairie-wife aesthetic, has 10 million followers. All of my other contacts who leaned into the buzz around self-sufficiency in 2020-2021 now have hundreds of thousands of followers.Unfortunately for my pocketbook, I was wrapped up in several blankets worth of troubles at that time, forgetting to reply to emails and sometimes forgetting to just get out of bed.Not all of my friends went full “tradwife”. Some simply began to prothetize more about organic methods, no till gardens, and permaculture practices. They DIYed themselves crazy. How many of them had outside help to manage a menagerie of animals and a list of home improvement projects? Far more than ever mentioned help.Thoreau had brought his laundry into town for his mother. Now, today’s homestead influencers have perfected promoting a from scratch lifestyle while utilizing invisible helping hands at every turn.A less welcoming community grew around these very online homesteaders. When a follower would realize my political views swung left, they’d pepper my pictures with comments about how they’d thought they liked me until they found out I was a radical lefty. Several new homesteading festivals have sprung up around the country, including the popular Homesteaders of America Conference, which draws almost 10,000 homesteaders annually and welcomes speakers such as Joel Salatin, an outspoken libertarian linked to possible roles in the Trump administration and Nick Freitas, a far-right state delegate from Virginia who has referred to the Affordable Care Act as a “cancer”.View image in fullscreenFor those reasons, the embrace of traditional living gave me pause. In between the grief and the daily grind, my community – online and in real life – was becoming more hostile. There were subjects that could not be talked about, loud unfollows when opinions became known, and a lifestyle that had been fun and alternative was warped by ugly exclusion.It felt as if a curtain had been pulled back from my lifestyle choice. I had enjoyed the connection to my food and the land through sustainable living, but I had never thought of my lifestyle as a step backwards in time. I had laughed at the idea I might someday be barefoot and pregnant in the garden. But, with a never ending list of homestead to-dos, I was as tied to the wood stove and the milking routine as an 1800s woman before me.The happiest “homesteaders” I know continue to thrive in semi-urban environments, with neighbors who stop by to check on the ducks if they want a break from the farm. Most of them are minimally online, disengaged from the performative fetishization of the lifestyle. They keep one foot in the garden, and one on the pavement of society.Today, Patrick and I keep a few goats and a garden in the backyard. We have the ability to leave the farm now and then for a trip, and we’re in the process of moving closer to family and culture. We are taking steps to ensure that our hard work is preserved, working with a land conservation group to keep the property in farmland long after we are gone.We have no aspirations towards self-sufficiency, but a desire to experience varied aspects of life while remaining connected to our food sources. I now have a set of skills I can draw on if I find myself in the kind of calamitous situation that sections of the homesteader community are prepping for. I feel a deep appreciation for the labor of food production. I’ve also learned to embrace the freedom of progress. Today, I run, I read, I write, I take the time to walk in nature and sit and converse with my husband.Today, I am able to slow down and live. More

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      US weather forecasts save lives and money. Trump’s cuts put us all at risk

      by

      Across the United States, from rural communities to coastal cities, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) is an integral part of our daily lives, safeguarding communities and fostering economic vitality.Whether it is tracking the path of hurricanes, managing our nation’s fisheries, providing critical information to air traffic controllers and airlines, or helping farmers plan for weather extremes, Noaa’s science, services and products have a significant impact on every American.Having served as the deputy administrator of Noaa and before that its general counsel, I have witnessed first-hand the indispensable role this agency plays. The Trump administration’s proposed draconian, reckless and, in many cases, unlawful budget and personnel cuts to the agency should alarm us all.These cuts will do little to achieve their stated goal of reducing the size and cost of government. They instead jeopardize the safety, economic prosperity and overall wellbeing of our nation.I should add that the administration’s assault on science is not limited to my former agency. Government-wide cuts are sparking outrage and demonstrations across the country.Each year, Noaa’s National Weather Service (NWS) issues more than 1.5m forecasts and 50,000 weather warnings. By providing critical lead time ahead of hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires and severe storms, Noaa’s forecasts save billions of dollars in economic losses annually and thousands of lives.Noaa’s continuing efforts to improve the accuracy of hurricane track forecasts have reduced the area of uncertainty for coastal evacuations, helping local governments, businesses and families avoid unnecessary costs. A recent study estimated that improvements in forecasting have resulted in an annual per-hurricane cost reduction of $5bn.In the aviation industry, Noaa forecasts and data-monitoring systems help ensure safe and efficient operations. Accurate weather information is essential for planning flight routes, avoiding severe weather and ensuring safe takeoffs and landings. Noaa also tracks weather in space, including solar flares and geomagnetic storms that can disrupt or interfere with technologies essential to safe air travel: satellite communications, GPS navigation and aircraft communication systems.The importance of Noaa’s work extends beyond public safety and economic savings to a range of private-sector applications. Private weather providers such as AccuWeather and the Weather Channel depend on Noaa’s open data to offer localized forecasts, while insurance companies use it to assess risk and set policy rates.The US commercial seafood industry supports roughly 1.7m jobs and generates more than $300bn annually in total sales. Noaa’s fisheries management, research and inspection programs are critical to sustaining these jobs, preserving ecosystems, ensuring robust seafood supplies, and guaranteeing that safe seafood is sold throughout the United States.Additionally, saltwater recreational fishing is a significant economic driver in coastal communities, supporting tens of thousands of jobs and contributing billions annually to local economies. All of this is reliant on well-managed fisheries and healthy marine habitats.Moreover, Noaa marine sanctuaries protect critical habitats, support biodiversity and provide opportunities for research, education and tourism, contributing billions of dollars to local economies. For instance, the Florida Keys national marine sanctuary, one of 18 in the US, is estimated to contribute $4bn annually to Florida’s economy and supports 43,000 jobs.Farmers and ranchers depend on Noaa’s seasonal and sub-seasonal forecasts to make decisions about planting, harvesting, irrigation and risk management. A single drought or flood forecast can mean the difference between profitable harvests and financial ruin.Similarly, the US Department of Transportation reports that more than $5.4tn of commerce crosses US ports annually. Noaa’s nautical charts, tide tables and navigation services are essential for keeping these ports and waterways running safely and efficiently, thereby supporting global trade and local jobs.Furthermore, urban planners and emergency managers at all levels rely on Noaa’s climate data and long-range forecasts and projections to design roads, bridges and flood defenses capable of withstanding rising sea levels and stronger storms. By ensuring that infrastructure investments are based on accurate, up-to-date data, billions of dollars in future repair and disaster costs can be avoided.From safeguarding families in the path of severe storms to supporting the economic health of fishing towns and agricultural communities, Noaa’s programs are indispensable. Efforts by the Trump administration to hobble the agency through budget and wholesale staff reductions are not only misguided but also dangerous. If President Trump and his administration are serious about making America great, they will recognize that funding Noaa is an investment that saves lives, guides critical industries, strengthens our economy and reinforces our nation’s global leadership in innovation and science.

      Terry Garcia served as the assistant secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and as deputy administrator of Noaa. He also served as its general counsel More

    • 175 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Sold-out farm shops, smuggled deliveries and safety warnings: US battle over raw milk grows

      by

      It’s 8am, and Redmond, an 11-year-old Brown Swiss dairy cow and designated matriarch of the Churchtown Dairy herd, has been milked in her designated stall. She is concentrating on munching hay; her seventh calf is hovering nearby.The herd’s production of milk, sold unpasteurised in half-gallon and quart glass bottles in an adjacent farm store, sells out each week. It has become so popular that the store has had to limit sales.Redmond and her resplendent bovine sisters, wintering in a Shaker-style barn in upstate New York, appear unaware of the cultural-political storm gathering around them – an issue that is focusing minds far from farmyard aromas of mud and straw.The production and state-restricted distribution of raw milk, considered by some to boost health and by ­others to be a major risk to it, has become a perplexing political touchstone on what is termed the “Woo-to-Q pipeline”, along which yoga, wellness and new age spirituality adherents can drift into QAnon conspiracy beliefs.Robert F Kennedy Jr, Donald Trump’s pick to run the US Department of Health, is an advocate. He has made unpasteurised milk part of his Make America Healthy Again movement and recently tweeted that government regulations on raw milk were part of a wider “war on public health”.View image in fullscreenRepublican congresswoman and conspiracy theorist Marjorie Taylor Greene has posted “Raw Milk does a body good”. But the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) says that “raw milk can carry dangerous germs such as salmonella, E coli, listeria, campylobacter and others that cause foodborne illness”.Last week, the US Department of Agriculture issued an order to broaden tests for H5N1 – bird flu – in milk at dairy processing ­facilities, over fears that the virus could become the next Covid-19 if it spreads through US dairy herds and jumps to humans. Since March, more than 700 dairy herds across the US have tested ­positive for bird flu, mostly in California. But the new testing strategy does not cover farms that directly process and sell their own raw milk.At the same time, another dairy product has become the subject of conspiracy theories after misinformation spread about the use of Bovaer in cow feed in the UK. Arla Foods, the Danish-Swedish company behind Lurpak, announced trials of the additive, designed to cut cow methane emissions, at 30 of its farms. Some social media users raised concerns over the additive’s safety and threatened a boycott, despite Bovaer being approved by regulators.In the US, raw milk is seen as anti-government by the right, anti-corporate by the left, and amid the fracturing political delineations, lies a middle ground unmoved by either ideology.“Food production has always been political,” says Churchtown Dairy owner and land reclamation pioneer, Abby Rockefeller.Churchtown manager Eric Vinson laments raw milk has been lumped in with QAnon and wellness communities. “There’s an idea around that ­people who want to take ownership of their health have started to become conspiratorial,” he says. “It’s unfortunate. Raw milk may be a political issue but it’s not a right-left issue.”Iowa, Montana, North Dakota, Alaska, Georgia, and Wyoming have passed laws or changed rules to allow the sale at farms or shops since 2020. In New York, sales are legal at farms with permits, although supplies are smuggled into the city marked “for cats and dogs”. There is no suggestion Churchtown is involved in that.Amish communities abandoned a non-political stance in the national elections in November and voted Republican, in part over the raw milk issue. An Amish organic farm was raided by the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture in January.There are also the health-aware “farmers’ market mums”, who say they are looking to raw milk for an immunity boost, and who harbour latent anger over the government pandemic response and vaccine mandates.View image in fullscreenRachel, a Manhattan mother of a three-year-old, who declined to be fully identified, citing potential social judgment, said: “After Covid, more of us started thinking about our bodies and health because of scepticism around doctors, hospitals and a corrupted health care system.” But like many people, she said, she felt she’d been “caught in the middle” of a political battle.Sales of raw milk are up between 21% and 65% compared with a year ago, according to the market research firm NielsenIQ. Mark McAfee, California raw milk advocate and owner of Raw Farm USA in Fresno, says production and supply across the state is growing at 50% a year. But the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention call raw milk one of the “riskiest” foods people can consume. Experts say they are “horrified” by a trend they consider a roll-back of Louis Pasteur’s 19th-century invention of pasteurisation.Vinson disagrees with the idea that raw milk is “inherently dangerous” and argues, because conventional dairies rely on pasteurisation, “they don’t have to worry about sanitation around the milking practices – they can cut corners”. “You have to be more careful producing raw milk but it brings a higher price,” he adds.View image in fullscreenSince the pandemic, visitors to Churchtown have increased.Earlier this month, McAfee’s Raw Farm was hit by a notice from the California Department of Health warning that H5 virus, better known as bird flu, had been detected in a batch of cream-top whole raw milk.It’s not yet known if the virus can be transmitted to people who consume infected milk but the CDC officials warn that people who drink raw milk could theoretically become infected.Back at Churchtown Dairy, Vinson is tending the herd. A huge Jersey cow shadows her four-day old calf. At weekends, he offers tours of the barn to raw milk-curious visitors. “One of my main jobs is informing the public about farming and agricultural issues,” he says. That includes being receptive to changes. “It is important to say we don’t know everything and keep an eye open.” More

    • 175 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      The Guardian view on the EU-Mercosur trade deal: another farmer flashpoint approaches | Letters

      by

      Anticipating the strong protectionist winds that will blow from Donald Trump’s White House, the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, has been responding by making her own economic weather. Last week, Ms von der Leyen flew to Montevideo, 5,000 miles south of Washington DC, to controversially conclude negotiations in one of the biggest free trade agreements in history. Twenty-five years in the making, the Mercosur trade deal opens up trade between the EU and a Latin American bloc of partners comprising Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay.In theory, the agreement promises a more open market of 700 million people for products ranging from Argentine beef to German cars. For European manufacturers, it would eliminate tariffs on a majority of goods. As Mr Trump threatens to impose heavy tariffs on Chinese and European exports, here was evidence, asserted Ms von der Leyen, “that openness and cooperation are the true engines of progress and prosperity”.This sunny analysis does not, however, tell the whole story. From an economic perspective, the Mercosur deal makes sense for Europe, offering an alternative market in the event of US tariffs and amid the continuing Chinese slowdown. It also deepens European connections with the global south, at a time when Beijing is doing the same in systematic fashion. But the political realities are treacherous: opposing Mercosur is a common cause celebre among European farmers, who fear being undercut by Latin American producers who are not subject to the same environmental standards.At the end of a year in which farmers’ protests have made headlines across the continent, and far-right parties have exploited rural resentment to attack the EU’s green transition, this is territory to be navigated with extreme care. The deal has yet to be ratified, and EU member states are split. Germany, desperate to shore up its export industry, is strongly in favour. France, whose farmers famously carry immense political clout, is implacably opposed. Serious reservations have been expressed by the Netherlands, Poland, Austria, Italy and Ireland.Less than a month after officially beginning her second term in office, Ms von der Leyen is taking a risk by pushing ahead at pace when such divisions exist. Approval of the trade part of the overall deal may be subject to a qualified majority vote, meaning that France would not be able to exercise its veto. That would be grist to Marine Le Pen’s mill, given that, in one recent poll, almost two-thirds of French citizens said they no longer had confidence in the EU. Meanwhile, the prospect of a disunited European front – with France and Germany at loggerheads – as Mr Trump enters the White House, is not an uplifting one.In the quarter of a century since the Mercosur negotiations began, the negative impacts of globalisation on particular European regions and economic sectors have driven a backlash that has benefited the far right. Trade deals are about politics as well as economics. To avoid the fallout of this deal overshadowing the economic gains, Brussels should make it a priority that losers from it are adequately compensated. Bypassing a necessary battle for hearts and minds, as the EU confronts new geopolitical challenges without and the rise of Eurosceptic nationalism within, is not a viable option.

      Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here. More