

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Nydia Gutiérrez, ngutierrez@earthjustice.org
Loss of critical USDA resources will hurt farmers and food security
Today, Earthjustice and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, representing the Northeast Organic Farming Association of New York (NOFA-NY), Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and the Environmental Working Group (EWG), sued the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) for unlawfully removing department webpages focused on climate change. The lawsuit seeks a court order requiring USDA to restore access to key webpages and preventing USDA from removing additional climate-related information.
All farmers in the U.S. are facing extreme and changing weather patterns. Climate information is critical to help them make the best choices and access resources to mitigate harm to their livelihoods. Many farmers are also moving to climate-smart practices because it’s good for business; studies show that people often prefer and will pay more for climate-smart foods. Denying farmers access to information on developing markets and federal funding hurts their profits.
“USDA’s irrational climate change purge doesn’t just hurt farmers, researchers, and advocates. It also violates federal law several times over,” said Jeffrey Stein, Earthjustice associate attorney. “USDA should be working to protect our food system from droughts, wildfires, and extreme weather, not denying the public access to critical resources.”
The website purge, alongside widespread USDA staff layoffs and the freeze of billions in conservation funding, will impair food security, leave farmers and rural economies without critical support, and deprive farmers, researchers, and advocates the information they need to press for the re-instatement of funding and support.
The lawsuit argues that USDA is violating three federal laws: the Freedom of Information Act, which mandates public access to key documents; the Paperwork Reduction Act, which requires adequate notice before changing information access; and the Administrative Procedure Act, which prohibits arbitrary government actions.
Resources removed from USDA websites last month include information on climate-smart farming, federal loans, conservation, and climate adaptation. The USDA erased entire climate sections from the U.S. Forest Service and Natural Resources Conservation Service sites, including information helping farmers access billions of dollars for critical conservation practices. It also disabled interactive tools, such as the U.S. Forest Service’s “Climate Risk Viewer,” as well as technical guidance on cutting emissions and strengthening resilience to extreme weather.
The outcome of this lawsuit will have implications for the Trump administration across agencies. Since January 20, the Trump administration took down over 8,000 web pages across more than a dozen agencies from public access, including resources on public health, disaster preparedness, environmental justice, and foreign aid. Many of these pages have either vanished entirely or reappeared with restricted access.
“By wiping critical climate resources from the USDA’s website, the Trump administration has deliberately stripped farmers and ranchers of the vital tools they need to confront the escalating extreme weather threats like droughts and floods,” said Anne Schechinger, Midwest director for the Environmental Working Group. “This lawsuit isn’t just about transparency—it’s about holding those in power accountable for undermining the very information that helps protect the livelihoods of food producers, the food system and our future.”
“Farmers are on the frontlines of climate impacts, we have been reacting to extreme weather and making choices to protect our businesses and our food system for years. Climate change is not a hoax. Farmers, fisherman and foresters know from experience, that we need every piece of science and intergenerational knowledge to adjust to this new reality,” said Wes Gillingham, Northeast Organic Farming Association of New York (NOFA-NY) board president. “Taking climate change information off websites, freezing funds, and laying off USDA workers that are helping to protect communities is ludicrous. The removal of vital information for family farms is the real hoax being played on America.”
“USDA’s policies influence everything from the shape of our economy to the food we eat. Farmers, researchers, and advocates rely on USDA data to make important decisions about their work,” said Stephanie Krent, a staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute. “USDA’s sudden elimination of webpages that used to provide this information hurts all of us. Members of the public have a right to know how the department is implementing its priorities and administering its programs.”
“The Department of Agriculture’s website provides critical information about the devastating impacts of a changing climate on farming and helps farmers access programs to make their practices more resilient and save money,” said Rebecca Riley, managing director, Food & Agriculture, NRDC. “This information is crucial for making better decisions about growing food in a time of greater risk from more unpredictable weather and smaller profit margins. By removing climate information from the USDA’s website, the Trump administration is not just making farming harder—it is undermining our ability to adapt and respond to the very challenges climate change presents.”
Earthjustice is a non-profit public interest law firm dedicated to protecting the magnificent places, natural resources, and wildlife of this earth, and to defending the right of all people to a healthy environment. We bring about far-reaching change by enforcing and strengthening environmental laws on behalf of hundreds of organizations, coalitions and communities.
800-584-6460"Candidate for Senate Dan Osborn is already doing more for the people affected by the Tyson closure than the current Nebraska senators," said a worker rights advocate.
Instead of "another investigation" into possible wrongdoing by meatpacking giant Tyson, independent US Senate candidate Dan Osborn is demanding that elected officials in Nebraska simply "pick up the damn phone" and demand action from the Trump administration following the company's closure of one of the nation's largest meat processing plants in what one antitrust expert said was a clear-cut case of market manipulation.
Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-Neb.), whom Osborn is challenging in the 2026 election, said Thursday that his team is "taking a look at any allegation of wrongdoing" by Tyson, weeks after the company announced its massive plant in Lexington, Nebraska is set to close in January—putting more than 3,000 people in a town of 11,000 out of work.
The closure comes months after Tyson boosted its stock buybacks and following an announcement that its adjusted operating income had increased by 26% compared to 2024. Tyson controls about 80% of the US beef market along with three other companies, and the Department of Justice is investigating whether the four corporations are colluding to keep beef prices high.
Despite near-record high prices in the industry, Tyson said last week it was closing the Lexington plant and scaling back operations at its facility in Amarillo, Texas to "right-size its beef business and position it for long-term success."
Basel Musharbash, an antitrust lawyer at Antimonopoly Counsel in Paris, Texas, attended a press conference with Osborn across the street from the Lexington plant this week and said that the "legal analysis here is pretty straightforward" regarding whether Tyson has engaged in market manipulation.
“The Lexington plant accounts for around 5% of the nation’s cattle," said Musharbash. "By shutting down a plant that slaughters such a large portion of the cattle in this region and the country, Tyson will single-handedly reshape the nation’s cattle markets from boom to bust.”
Ranchers will be forced "to accept lower prices, and Tyson will be able to make higher profits," he said.
Osborn and Musharbash say Tyson has broken the 2021 Packers and Stockyards Act, which prohibits meatpackers from engaging "in any course of business or [doing] any act for the purpose or with the effect of manipulating or controlling prices."
Addressing Ricketts on social media, Osborn said Tyson workers "don’t need another useless congressional report that leads to nothing. We need ACTION!"
"Tyson workers and Nebraska ranchers need you to demand that [US Agriculture] Secretary Brooke Rollins immediately initiate an action to hold Tyson accountable for any market manipulation," he said.
The USDA told the Nebraska Examiner this week that it is monitoring "the closure of the plant to ensure compliance with the Packers and Stockyards Act," but Musharbash said Rollins can and should "compel Tyson to either keep the plant open or sell the plant to an upstart rival who will introduce honest competition into this cartelized industry."
"There is nothing left for Ricketts to 'look into,' and Nebraskans certainly don’t need some intern on Ricketts’ staff to write a research paper about this issue for the next six months while Tyson hollows out the Lexington community for its selfish gain," added Musharbash. "Nebraska—and this whole country—deserves better leaders than this."
Osborn pointed out Thursday that Ricketts has taken more than $70,000 in campaign donations from Tyson.
“The people of Lexington need their elected officials to fight now more than ever,” Osborn said at the press conference this week. “The law that’s been on the books for over 100 years should be enforced... So pick up the damn phone, call Brooke Rollins, and get the USDA to enforce the law.”
By visiting Lexington and speaking out against Tyson's gutting of thousands of jobs, former Federal Trade Commission member Alvaro Bedoya said that "candidate for Senate Dan Osborn is already doing more for the people affected by the Tyson closure than the current Nebraska senators."
"I’m fairly gravely concerned that he’s sleepwalking us into a war with Venezuela," said one US senator.
The Trump White House indicated Thursday that the administration is planning to seize more Venezuelan oil vessels after the president of the South American nation, Nicolás Maduro, denounced the US takeover of a tanker earlier this week as "an act of international piracy."
Reuters reported Thursday that the Trump administration, which has claimed without evidence to be targeting drug traffickers, "is preparing to intercept more ships transporting Venezuelan oil" as it ramps up its lawless military campaign in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific—and threatens a direct military assault on Venezuela.
In response to the Reuters story, which cited six unnamed sources, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt declared that "we're not going to stand by and watch sanctioned vessels sail the seas with black market oil, the proceeds of which will fuel narcoterrorism of rogue and illegitimate regimes around the world."
The US seizure of the Venezuelan tanker and its oil earlier this week marked the Trump administration's latest escalation in what experts and critics fear is a march to an unlawful, all-out war with the South American country.
"I have no idea why the president is seizing an oil tanker," US Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) said Thursday. "I’m fairly gravely concerned that he’s sleepwalking us into a war with Venezuela."
Mark Cancian, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told Al Jazeera that the oil vessel seizure "is certainly an escalation designed to put additional pressure on the Maduro regime, causing it to fracture internally or convincing Maduro to leave."
“The purpose also depends on whether the US seizes additional tankers,” he added. “In that case, this looks like a blockade of Venezuela. Because Venezuela depends so heavily on oil revenue, it could not withstand such a blockade for long.”
US lawmakers in both the House and Senate are pursuing war powers resolutions aimed at preventing the Trump administration from engaging in military conflict with Venezuela without congressional approval.
“Whatever this is about, it has nothing to do with stopping drugs," said US Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.). "To me, this appears to be all about creating a pretext for regime change. And I believe Congress has a duty to step in and assert our constitutional authority. No more illegal boat strikes, and no unauthorized war in Venezuela."
Some Indiana Republicans vocally objected to the president's pressure campaign, with one saying Hoosiers "don’t like to be bullied in any fashion."
Republican Indiana Lt. Gov. Micah Beckwith posted and subsequently deleted a claim that President Donald Trump had threatened to cut off funding to his state unless its legislators approved a mid-decade gerrymander that would have changed the composition of its congressional map to further favor the GOP.
Just over four hours after the Republican-led Indiana state Senate on Thursday voted down the Trump-backed gerrymander—which would have changed the projected balance of Indiana’s current congressional makeup from seven Republicans and two Democrats to a 9-0 map in favor of the GOP—Beckwith took to X to warn that the Hoosier State would soon be feeling the president's wrath.
"The Trump admin was VERY clear about this," he wrote, referring to threats to take away federal funding for Indiana. "They told many lawmakers, cabinet members, and the [governor] and I that this would happen. The Indiana Senate made it clear to the Trump admin today that they do not want to be partners with the [White House]. The WH made it clear to them that they'd oblige."

Although Beckwith deleted his post, he also confirmed to Politico reporter Adam Wren that the White House said that Indiana could lose out on funding for projects if the state did not approve the map, although Beckwith insisted that this was not a "threat" but merely "an honest conversation about who the White House does want to partner with."
Earlier on Thursday, the X account for right-wing advocacy group Heritage Action, a sister organization of the Heritage Foundation think tank, claimed that Trump had threatened to decimate Indiana's state finances unless the state Senate approved his proposed gerrymander.
"President Trump has made it clear to Indiana leaders: if the Indiana Senate fails to pass the map, all federal funding will be stripped from the state," Heritage Action wrote. "Roads will not be paved. Guard bases will close. Major projects will stop. These are the stakes and every NO vote will be to blame."
Trump has not yet publicly threatened to cut off Indiana's federal funds, and it's not clear that the administration actually plans to punish the state for defying the president.
According to a Thursday report from CNN, the Trump White House pressure campaign against Republican Indiana state senators backfired because many legislators resented being subjected to angry threats from Trump supporters, including some incidents in which lawmakers were swatted at their homes.
Republican Indiana state Sen. Jean Leising told CNN that the all-out pressure campaign waged by the president ended up pushing more people into opposing his agenda.
"You wouldn’t change minds by being mean," Leising said. "And the efforts were mean-spirited from the get-go. If you were wanting to change votes, you would probably try to explain why we should be doing this, in a positive way. That never happened, so, you know, I think they get what they get."
Fellow Republican Indiana state Sen. Sue Glick echoed Leinsing's assessment, and said that blunt-force threats against legislators were doomed to failure.
"Hoosiers are a hardy lot, and they don’t like to be threatened," Glick said. "They don’t like to be intimidated. They don’t like to be bullied in any fashion. And I think a lot of them responded with, ‘That isn’t going to work.' And it didn’t."
Indiana’s rejection of the proposed gerrymander this week was a major blow to Trump’s unprecedented mid-decade redistricting crusade, which began in Texas and subsequently spread to Missouri and North Carolina.