SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
agriculture
'A Slap in the Face': Trump Moves to Gut Biden-Era Rules Reining In Meatpackers
"We need robust enforcement of antitrust and fair trade practice laws to finally protect producers from meatpackers’ fundamentally unfair and illegal practices," said one campaigner.
Jul 06, 2026
A leading government accountability watchdog group on Monday ripped the Trump administration's move to rescind Biden-era rules enacted to protect ranchers and farmers from abuse by meatpacking corporations and boost competition in the key industry.
The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has announced the reversal of three Biden administration rules under the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921. One of the rules prohibits meatpackers, swine contractors, and poultry companies from retaliating against producers for actions like joining associations, speaking with regulators, or seeking other buyers.
Another rule mandated improved transparency in poultry grower contracts. The third rule‚ which was set to take effect this month, would have limited how poultry companies use the tournament payment system.
USDA said it plans to start the revocation process with proposed rulemakings scheduled for later this month and October.
Farm groups and antitrust advocates argue the move removes protections against monopolistic, deceptive, and retaliatory practices by dominant meatpacking and poultry companies.
“For years, meat corporations have abused hardworking farmers and ranchers. Now, the Trump administration is proposing to undo long-overdue progress made to level the playing field," Emily Miller, staff attorney at Food & Water Watch, said Monday in a statement. "This move is a slap in the face to all those who have long fought for fair treatment in livestock and poultry markets."
The USDA's move comes amid increased meat sector consolidation, which studies by Food & Water Watch, More Perfect Union, and others have found results in higher consumer prices and lower farmer profits.
Over the course of his two terms in office, Trump has boosted the meatpacking industry at the expense of worker rights, competition, and public health. His administration refused to issue binding rules requiring businesses to institute safety measures amid the Covid-19 pandemic, and he invoked the Defense Production Act to classify meatpacking plants as critical infrastructure and force them to stay open even as the coronavirus ravaged industry workers.
Trump has also supported corporate monopolization in meatpacking, and his administration has shut down a Department of Justice antitrust probe of alleged industry collusion. Just four meatpackers control approximately 80% of the market. Meanwhile, cattle producers who in 1980 received 63 cents for every dollar paid by consumers for beef were receiving just 37 cents four decades later.
"We need robust enforcement of antitrust and fair trade practice laws to finally protect producers from meatpackers’ fundamentally unfair and illegal practices," Miller said on Monday. "These rollbacks will do the opposite. We won’t rest until USDA does its job by putting producers above corporations.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
'A National Outrage': Days After Monsanto Ruling, Trump EPA Approves More Forever Chemical Pesticides
Ripping "Trump's reckless push to ignore science and embrace these extremely harmful, long-lasting pesticides," one critic said his legacy will be the millions "his shortsighted policies will sicken and prematurely kill."
Jun 30, 2026
The US Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday continued its betrayal of President Donald Trump's campaign promise to "Make America Healthy Again," approving the use of multiple "forever chemical" pesticides on crops despite public health concerns.
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are called forever chemicals because they don't naturally break down—instead accumulating in human and animal bodies as well as the environment. They have been used in everything from fabrics for clothing and furniture to firefighting foam to nonstick cookware, and are tied to various health problems, including increased risk of some cancers.
The Trump EPA on Tuesday finalized its approval of using two PFAS pesticides, diflufenican and epyrifenacil, on corn and soybeans, the two most widely grown crops in the United States.
The agency also expanded its allowances for another previously approved forever chemical pesticide, bifenthrin, and greenlighted the first food use of chlormequat, a non-PFAS pesticide tied to reproductive issues.
"While the Biden administration had approved one PFAS pesticide in the prior four years, this is the third and fourth approval of a PFAS pesticide under Trump in just his second year in office," the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) noted in a Tuesday statement. "The previous two PFAS pesticide approvals were cyclobutrifluram and isocycloseram."
As the center detailed:
The EPA has stated in press materials that these new fluorinated pesticides are not PFAS. That assertion is based on the fact that they do not meet the chemicals office's unilateral regulatory PFAS definition. But the new pesticides do meet the much more widely accepted PFAS definition that was developed transparently by dozens of scientists around the world. That definition has subsequently been endorsed by more than 150 leading PFAS researchers, is used by nearly every US state for regulating PFAS, and specifically was written into past versions of the National Defense Authorization Act.
Using the scientific definition of a PFAS that is widely accepted in this country and around the world, these pesticides are PFAS.
The EPA had even initially acknowledged that these pesticides met the more broadly accepted PFAS definition on its fluorinated pesticides webpage. Yet three weeks after creating the webpage, it removed any mention of the conflicting definition, instead portraying the agency’s unilateral definition as the only PFAS definition.
Under the Freedom of Information Act, CBD obtained documents showing that those website revisions were overseen by EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention's assistant administrator, Douglas Troutman, and Kyle Kunkler—a former American Soybean Association (ASA) lobbyist controversially installed as the office's deputy assistant administrator for pesticides—and reviewed by agency Administrator Lee Zeldin.
While ASA president and Ohio soybean farmer Scott Metzger welcomed the Tuesday approvals, saying that "we appreciate EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin and the agency" for advancing the registrations, Nathan Donley, CBD's environmental health science director, was deeply critical and tied the developments to the Trump administration's other actions serving the pesticide industry.
"It's a national outrage that Trump's EPA is expanding use of dangerous, cancer-linked PFAS pesticides just days after the Supreme Court limited the American people's right to sue pesticide companies," said Donley, referring to last week's ruling in favor of Monsanto and against thousands of people who argue that its glyphosate-based weedkiller Roundup caused their cancer.
In addition to the Trump administration backing Bayer—which bought Monsanto in 2018—in the case before the high court, the president in February issued an executive order mandating the production of glyphosate. Since returning to office last year, Trump has also faced criticism for EPA approvals of other pesticides, from atrazine to dicamba, and for his administration's MAHA report that echoes industry talking points.
Donley declared Tuesday that "Trump's reckless push to ignore science and embrace these extremely harmful, long-lasting pesticides ensures his legacy won't be the many monuments he's built to himself, but the many millions of people his shortsighted policies will sicken and prematurely kill."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Mark June Dairy Month with Industry-Wide Reform
Congress should pass measures like the Milk From Family Dairies Act (MFDA), which ensures farmers a decent price without driving up costs for consumers and relying on taxpayer-funded subsidies.
Jun 16, 2026
Sometimes the truth stares you right in the face.
Case in point—in the middle of his agricultural roundtable event with farmers and Republican representatives held this past June 5 in Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin, President Donald Trump took a moment to reflect about a different meeting he once had with another group of producers. As the president remembered, he told the farmers, “I’m going to get you a subsidy.” To his surprise they responded that they didn’t want subsidies, but rather, “a level playing field.”
It would be easy to gloss over the truth in Trump’s recollection, especially as he rambled on about many things unrelated to farming such as repairing monuments around Washington DC, his disdain for Democrats, and how the Southern border was closed to migrants. This, as NFL Hall-of-Famer Joe Thomas sat to Trump’s side and drew gushing remarks from the president about the retired player’s body.
Unlike Thomas, most farmers cannot draw on millions to stay on the land. Instead, they can turn to the government to promote fair markets. As much could happen now, during June Dairy Month, as the Farm Bill is working through Congress and much needed relief could come by including in the ominous piece of legislation key reforms to the dairy industry.
Instead of such piecemeal fixes, the dairy industry needs industry-wide reform, as the farmers who spoke with Trump once said, “to level the playing field.”
To be fair, discussion during Trump’s roundtable did include some dairy policies.
Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, for instance, alluded to trade deals that would increase exports. Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-Wis.), whose district the roundtable took place in and who appears in danger of losing his seat to the daughter of dairy farmers, Rebecca Cooke, touted the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act. The act restores whole and reduced fat (2%) milk options at schools.
The problem is that both initiatives don’t do much.
First, the evidence shows that increasing exports doesn’t keep people farming.
Farm Bureau data shows that since 2016, total dairy export value has doubled from just over $4 million to over $8 in 2024. But during this same period, the number of licensed dairy herds has collapsed, from over 40,000, to under 25,000.
Meanwhile, serving milk at school lunch does open markets. And nationwide, since 2024, more people have been consuming milk after years of decline. But even amid rising demand, in 2025 Wisconsin saw a 700% increase in bankruptcies, particularly hitting dairy farmers.
Instead of such piecemeal fixes, the dairy industry needs industry-wide reform, as the farmers who spoke with Trump once said, “to level the playing field.”
The proposal that would advance such change is the Milk From Family Dairies Act (MFDA). Created by the National Family Farm Coalition and endorsed by over 90 organizations, the MFDA ensures farmers a decent price without driving up costs for consumers and relying on taxpayer-funded subsidies.
The principle behind the MFDA is supply management, similar to the system in Canada. In this system, consumer supply demands are balanced with prices that farmers are paid for their milk in regular meetings of stakeholders. For farmers, receiving compensation for at least the cost of production is a big deal, as since 2021, even taking into consideration advantages of increasing herd size, dairy producers across the board have consistently had to sell their milk at a loss as the price of feed, seed, and fertilizer rise.
Consumers benefit as the MFDA makes investments in local dairy processors, increasing competition to drive down prices, and corporate concentration in the industry is targeted with anti-trust enforcement to curtail price gouging by large-scale retailers at the grocery store. Currently, taxpayers pick up the tab for farmers who have financial troubles with subsidies, or direct payments, which Trump has handed out repeatedly across his administrations.
Unlike Joe Thomas, most farmers don’t have millions to keep them going. Instead, they have the government, which should ensure fair markets. So, to mark June Dairy month, our lawmakers should listen to farmers, level the playing field, and include elements from the MFDA into the Farm Bill.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Report Details How Climate Crisis Fuels Crop Failure Risk in Global Breadbaskets
"As globally important food-producing regions face growing risks of climate-driven disruption, the effects can ripple through livelihoods, supply chains, food assistance systems, and geopolitical relationships."
Jun 09, 2026
The climate emergency is sharply increasing the risk of crop failure in regions that produce an outsized share of the world's staple food grains, according to a report published Tuesday that warns of "serious threats to Europe, the NATO alliance, and global stability" if cooperative resilience initiatives and other mitigation strategies aren't pursued.
The report, "Global Breadbaskets: Food System Resilience as a Strategic Imperative," was published by the Center for Climate and Security—part of the Council on Strategic Risks, a Washington, DC-based security policy think tank—and the Woodwell Climate Research Center, an independent nonprofit located in Falmouth, Massachusetts.
"Geopolitical fragmentation, conflict, extreme weather, and global aid cuts already strain food security. Meanwhile, climate change is increasing the likelihood of crop failures in the American, European, and Asian breadbaskets, which produce most of the staple crops underpinning global food security," the report states.
🆕 Across India, France, and Germany, in the next decade and a half, the odds of key crops failing are set to increase by between two- and six-fold. This isn't just a food story. It's also a #NATO security story.
[image or embed]
— Council on Strategic Risks (@councilonstrategicrisks.org) June 9, 2026 at 12:13 AM
The publication follows an April report from a pair of United Nations agencies on how extreme heat is impacting food production and food security around the planet. The new report includes a storymap that explores climate change-driven threats to wheat, rice, and maize (corn) crops in France, Germany, and India—three of the world's "global breadbaskets."
The analysis' authors note that compared with 2010 threat levels, by 2040, "the risk of a given year’s crop failing is projected to grow roughly twofold for Indian wheat and German maize, roughly threefold for French wheat, roughly fourfold for French maize, and roughly sixfold for Indian rice, with sharp increases in critical producing regions."
Climate-driven extreme heat "not only threatens crops, but also the laborers and infrastructure that translate them into food security," the report continues. "Extreme heat is projected to reduce the suitability of 15-40% of India’s rain-fed rice-growing regions by 2050, and to reduce physical work capacity during the average growing season to as little as 40% of 2000-era levels by 2100."
"By 2040, southwestern France will average up to 16 additional days per year above 35°C (95°F), exceeding thresholds that reduce yields, impact grain quality, and cause heat stroke," the paper warns. "Extreme heat also threatens to damage or disable road and rail networks critical to food transportation, agricultural machinery, civil defense, and military mobilization."
The publication also states that global breadbasket failures in Europe "could open rifts for Russian meddling, fuel instability in key partners, and elevate food production as a geopolitical lever."
The Council on Strategic Risks operates within the transatlantic security policy community, whose work often overlaps with NATO's interests.
“We have plenty of examples of how crop failures can contribute to political instability, from the French Revolution to the Arab Spring," Center for Climate and Security deputy director and report lead author Tom Ellison said Tuesday in a statement. "In today’s environment, global breadbasket failures could strain NATO priorities, prompt unrest in key countries, and upend trade relationships."
Woodwell Climate Research Center scientist and report co-author Alexandra Naegele warned that “climate change doesn't just threaten crop yields and grain quality—it destabilizes entire food systems, from labor and livestock to food storage and transport."
"Quantifying these climate-driven risks is an essential step toward building resilient food systems and safeguarding global food security," she added.
The report recommends steps countries—specifically members of the European Union and NATO—can take to mitigate risks to food security, including strengthening cooperative resilience, anticipating instability and hybrid warfare, supporting strategic and vulnerable partners, coordinating trade responses, and investing in agricultural research and development.
"Amid climate change, geopolitical uncertainty, food shocks from the war in Iran, and Russian hybrid warfare, investing in a resilient food system isn’t in competition with security—it’s a key part of it," Ellison stressed.
Monica Caparas, a scientist at the Woodwell Climate Research Center and report co-author, said, "Understanding and preparing for breadbasket failures is both a national security priority and a humanitarian imperative—one that can help protect lives, reduce instability, and strengthen food resilience before a regional shock becomes a wider crisis."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Talarico Calls on Trump USDA to 'Fully Staff' Agency to Confront Flesh-Eating Parasite Found in Texas Cattle
A key pest control office "lost 1,300 employees due to cuts and firings" said one public health expert. "That’s the thing about prevention: You don’t notice it when it works, only when it is gone."
Jun 04, 2026
Democratic US Senate candidate James Talarico called on the Trump administration to reverse the massive job cuts at the US Department of Agriculture—some of the largest that were imposed last year as President Donald Trump and his then-adviser Elon Musk embarked on a "slash-and-burn exercise" to reduce the government workforce—as the agency announced Wednesday that it had detected the country's first case of New World screwworm since 1966.
The parasitic fly was found in a three-week-old calf in La Pryor, Texas, after months of warnings from Texas agricultural officials and the state's $15 billion cattle industry that the flesh-eating pest, whose larvae exclusively feed on the living tissue of warm-blooded animals, could soon make its way to the US after spreading through Latin America in recent years. Mexico reported its first case in 2024 and saw a 53% increase in the number of cases in animals between July-August 2025.
"Following a historic drought that has reduced our herd size and driven up prices," said Talarico late Wednesday, "the New World screwworm outbreak is further disrupting supply chains that impact all of us who rely on the cattle industry—from meatpacking facilities to feedlots to grocery stores."
"We must fully staff the USDA so that the federal government can provide clear and predictable guidance for ranchers and work alongside the Texas government and the cattle industry to keep pests like the New World screwworm out of our herd," said Talarico.
Catharine Young, a senior fellow at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, noted that the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Prevention Service "helps prevent threats like screwworm from ever reaching US livestock."
"In 2025, it lost 1,300 employees due to cuts and firings," said Young. "That’s the thing about prevention: You don’t notice it when it works, only when it is gone."
The Department of Government Efficiency also cut funding that supported outbreak investigations, response efforts, and testing laboratories in 22 countries and helped build laboratories for testing.
The parasite does not pose a food safety threat, according to officials. A top concern is that an outbreak could raise beef prices—which have already been driven up by the fact that the US cattle herd is the smallest it's been in 75 years following years of drought conditions, the surging costs associated with ranching, and corporate consolidation.
The USDA estimates that an outbreak could cost Texas' economy $1.8 billion in losses before it is contained.
The pest can infect humans—and 41 human cases were reported in Mexico last year—but experts say such cases are rare and that the detection of screwworm in Texas poses little risk to the public.
Instead of spreading from animal to animal, screwworm females lay eggs in animals' open wounds. The larvae then burrow into living flesh and feed on tissue, causing severe infections and death if the livestock goes untreated.
For decades, agricultural officials deployed a technique that successfully eradicated screwworm in the US: releasing sterilized male flies into affected areas. Female flies generally only mate once in their lifespan, so those that mate with a sterile male produce no offspring.
The USDA has begun releasing sterile flies into the part of South Texas where the parasite was found and is investing in sterile fly production facilities in the state. It has also established a 12-mile quarantine zone around the affected area.
US officials are also reportedly working with Mexico and Panama to use the sterile fly technique in those countries.
Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said Wednesday that US has deployed 8,000 traps capable of detecting screwworm, and blamed the case in South Texas on "the open-border policies of the last administration and the resulting illicit cattle movement."
Rollins had denied screwworm was in the United States a day before she confirmed the case at a press conference on Wednesday.
Experts believe pandemic-era disruptions to sterile fly programs, increased movement of livestock and people, and weather conditions that have allowed the parasite to thrive may all have contributed to the screwworm's gradual journey toward the US.
Texas Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller said Wednesday that "for months, the screwworm has advanced rapidly through Mexico in spite of the USDA’s existing gameplan," and called on the Trump administration to approve the deployment of the Screwworm Adult Suppression System, which uses bait and insecticides and was tested by the US in the 1970s to eradicate the parasite.
“We have the ability to shut that and eradicate that screwworm," Miller told The Texas Tribune. "We can do it in about 60 days. USDA has the tools and the knowledge to do it.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
It's Time for a Progressive Policy to Protect Agricultural Supply Chains
Price floors and supply management programs seem common sense to policymakers when it comes to oil and minerals, but what about US farmers and our overall food system?
Jun 03, 2026
The race to obtain critical minerals and the war in Iran have not only exposed a dangerous dependence on fossil fuels and mining, but they have also uncovered something more surprising—Republicans in Congress actually understand progressive agriculture policy. They just don’t want to admit it.
In February, Vice President JD Vance announced at the State Department that the administration must institute a price floor to protect the US critical mineral market. “This morning, the Trump administration is proposing a concrete mechanism to return the global critical minerals market to a healthier, more competitive state: a preferential trade zone for critical minerals protected from external disruptions through enforceable price floors,” Vance explained. Meanwhile, the US—and other countries around the world—are deploying oil reserves to buffer price shocks caused by the Israel-US attacks on Iran. Price floors and supply management programs seem common sense to these policymakers when it comes to oil and minerals, but what about US farmers and our overall food system?
Like oil and critical minerals, food and agriculture supply chains, such as corn, soy, and dairy, are vulnerable to global shocks, including extreme weather events, wars, and other supply disruptions. The public also needs to understand that without inflation-adjusted price floors, agricultural commodity prices may sink to disastrously low levels, leaving farmers no choice but to increase production with more chemicals and GMO seeds at the expense of our land and water. Congress and the US Department of Agriculture can avoid low prices by creating reserves accumulated during large harvests and, just like the federal petroleum reserve, bringing them back on the market to stabilize prices in times of shortage. We can all agree that food shortages would be disastrous, so guaranteeing its citizens food security should be imperative for any democratic government.
So while Republicans can recognize the importance of price floors and supply management during this administration, Democrats should look at history to understand how the same instruments were developed for agriculture during the Great Depression under the Democratic Party’s New Deal. The twin crises of farm bankruptcies and the Dust Bowl spurred militant farm organizations to demand a response from the federal government. The response was parity farm bills that stopped farm bankruptcies and stabilized the farm economy so that conservation measures and preservation of diversified farming could lead to food security and a balanced economy. Federal leadership in the White House and Congress recognized that price and supply management benefited both farmers and society as a whole. The policy was simple and transparent: The farm bill would ensure that during years of good harvests, public grain reserves would purchase the surplus at the parity rate (price floor adjusted for inflation) and store it to protect consumers in future times of shortage.
A productive agricultural economy that conserves our resources, challenges agricultural consolidation, and offers economic opportunity in rural communities should be a top priority for all our citizens.
However, both parties abandoned this common-sense approach to farm policy in the early 1950s, so that costs of farming have totally outpaced commodity prices. Subsequently, headlines warning of a farm crisis in 2026, like during the Great Depression and the 1980s, are not uncommon. The prices paid to farmers for commodities such as corn, soybeans, wheat, and dairy have dropped to record lows in real dollars. Over the years, this imbalance has led to the loss of family farms, the consolidation of agribusiness and food processing monopolies, along with their profits benefiting handsomely. Stabilizing the ratio of farm prices to farm costs (the correct goal of any Farm Bill) is the key to a sustainable agriculture that avoids soil loss, water pollution, and the decline of rural communities.
A supply management program would not only help revive family operations and rural economies but would also be essential to combat the expansion of confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) and lower costs for taxpayers. As reported by Food & Water Watch, CAFOs are a disaster for our climate, air, and water, especially for nearby communities. CAFOs are among the most egregious features of today’s low-price, commodity-based industrial agriculture. Thousands of livestock (owned or vertically integrated with large food processors) are confined in small facilities without fresh air or sunlight and fed cheap corn and soy.
CAFOs have been replacing conscientious family farmers who are stewards of the soil and their animals. When family farmers are forced out of livestock production, they face the dilemma of “get big or get out” and often have no farming alternatives other than to tear up their pastures to grow corn and soybeans that will end up feeding animals in CAFOs.
The Trump administration is applying often-forgotten policy instruments to sustain our fossil fuel dependence and our high-tech future, rather than prioritizing a resilient, sustainable economy. Managing a price floor and creating federal food reserves in the agriculture sector are necessary to combat the adverse effects of food processor monopolization, farm consolidation, soil and water degradation, and external shocks, such as wars.
A productive agricultural economy that conserves our resources, challenges agricultural consolidation, and offers economic opportunity in rural communities should be a top priority for all our citizens. “We love farmers” and “We put America’s farmers first” are just political slogans to get votes with no substance behind them. These slogans lead to the usual sleight of hand to send taxpayer dollars to get some farmers through the next planting season. This policy leaves the disastrous cheap commodity regime in place—encouraging CAFO production and exporting commodities at a loss.
The administration’s discovery of the logical policy of price floors and reserves for oil and minerals must open new doors to applying these logical and transparent mechanisms to agriculture to restore the security of family farmers and conservation of our precious resources—after all, we can’t eat petroleum or precious minerals.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Tariffs Won't Save America’s Farms; Community-Rooted Solar Power Might
Rethinking how we use the land means American farms can stay in business, producing food and energy that remains local while we invest back into our communities.
Jun 01, 2026
America’s farmers are in big trouble. Despite the recent politically timed purchase of 12 million metric tons of US soybeans by China, after months of cancelled or stalled sales, the market remains volatile and uncertain. China now publicly favors cheaper Brazilian soybeans, and US soy exports to China have fallen to their lowest level in more than two decades.
The decline of this important market compounds other struggles farmers like me are facing, including falling commodity prices and rising costs. The number of farm bankruptcies remains troublingly high.
But there’s a solution that can help farmers lower their costs and reduce dependence on volatile foreign markets, while producing cheaper, cleaner energy for all Americans. It’s called agri-energy, and it offers a viable pathway to both food and energy independence.
American farmers were hurting long before the tariffs were put in place. Despite record yields, farming accounts for less than 1% of the American GDP and we have now entered an agricultural trade deficit.
When small farmers are forced to “get out,” our land is typically sold to large farm corporations, to real estate developers, or, God forbid, to the Dollar General corporation.
Any healthy economy relies on diversity, but we put all of our eggs into the corn and soy baskets long ago. Corn and soy are the top two agricultural commodities produced in the United States. This means that any shift in global markets—like the current trade war—can leave farmers with full silos and empty bank accounts.
Now, we’re scrambling to figure out how to recover our investments when we’ve already put so much money, time, and generational resources into these monocultures. Our yields might be excellent, but with corn and soy prices declining sharply relative to production costs, that may not matter much.
The Trump administration’s “solution” is to provide assistance to farmers in the form of relief checks and subsidies, which is akin to putting a Band-Aid on a bleeding femoral artery. Might look okay for a minute, but it’s not going to stop the flow (in this case, the flow of bankruptcies and foreclosures).
What we need to do is start focusing on whole-systems approaches. That’s where agri-energy comes into play.
Agri-energy, also known as agrivoltaics or dual-use solar, involves growing crops or grazing livestock under solar panels, allowing farmers to double dip on their land. By leasing their land for solar energy production, farmers get a nice bumper crop each year—with lease payments averaging $1,000 or more per acre. It’s consistent, reliable income that’s not dependent on the global commodity market.
Because solar leases are long—20 to 30 years or more—there’s more predictability and stability in this kind of setup than perhaps any other agricultural model. If a farmer is ready to lease his land and get out of farming entirely, agri-energy allows for another farmer to manage that land in his place. That’s the case for our family farm—we receive payment from the solar company for vegetation management services on other sites.
On a broader scale, practices like rotational grazing (typically the go-to on solar farms) improve soil quality and leave the land healthier than it was prior to the solar farm’s installation. The animals benefit, too, from improved forage and shade, reaching heavier finishing and weaning weights at a lower cost to the farmer. This, too, we’ve seen firsthand on the solar farms we graze.
Rethinking how we use the land means American farms can stay in business, producing food and energy that remains local while we invest back into our communities.
Some worry that agri-energy will take good land out of agriculture. But the reliable income from solar leases can actually keep farmers on the land. This is especially important for small farmers like me who were once told to “get big or get out.”
When small farmers are forced to “get out,” our land is typically sold to large farm corporations, to real estate developers, or, God forbid, to the Dollar General corporation. Remember: Prime farmland doesn’t remain farmland if it’s not farmed.
If we really want to reduce our reliance on global trade, agri-energy—not tariffs—may be the silver bullet we’re looking for.
Keep ReadingShow Less
From Gas to Groceries, Rural Americans Paying Heaviest Price for Trump's Iran War
A Center for American Progress analysis found that the war is "forcing rural households to pay at least $26 more per week at the pump and threatening to push grocery prices even higher in the months ahead."
May 15, 2026
President Donald Trump won the 2024 election largely on a promise to alleviate the affordability crisis, but an analysis published Friday underscores how rural Americans—the bedrock of the MAGA base—are disproportionately paying the price for the US-Israeli war of choice on Iran.
"Rising gas and fertilizer prices tied to the Trump administration’s war in Iran are driving up costs for rural families, farmers, and consumers across the country," notes the analysis from the Center for American Progress (CAP), a liberal think tank.
"Gas prices rose 52% between February 27, the day before the war with Iran began, and May 14, forcing rural households to pay at least $26 more per week at the pump and threatening to push grocery prices even higher in the months ahead," the publication continues.
"The economic fallout from the conflict is disproportionately affecting rural America, where households already spend significantly more on gasoline and energy and where farm operations depend heavily on diesel fuel and fertilizer," CAP added. "As oil prices rise and shipping through the Strait of Hormuz remains disrupted, farmers are facing mounting input costs during an already difficult economic period."
CAP researchers also found that the gap between urban and rural fuel costs has increased from $46 to $70 per month since the start of the war.
With diesel fuel accounting for over 60% of their fuel expenditures, farmers are facing the prospect of paying at least $350 more per day to operate a single tractor.
"There are 453 farming-dependent counties across the country, and rising fuel and fertilizer costs could force more small and medium-sized farms out of business if disruptions continue," the analysis warns.
As Common Dreams reported this week, Trump's illegal war of choice and erratic tariff policies are hurting farmers and consumers while Big Ag profits from fast-rising fertilizer and food prices.
Likewise, while consumers feel the pain of skyrocketing pump prices, Big Oil is reaping prodigious profits fueled by scarcity and market uncertainty due to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and other war-related causes.
A report published earlier this month by the office of Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) projects that US drivers could pay an additional $876 per year—or $1,753 for a family with two cars—on gasoline per year if pump prices remain at their current levels.
The CAP analysis comes on the heels of the latest consumer price index, released earlier this week, which revealed that inflation has risen to its highest level in three years largely due to rising fuel and food costs.
According to CAP, lower-income households—which spent a third of their pretax income on food in 2024—"will be hit hardest" by rising grocery prices, as the highest-income households spent just 6.4% of their before-tax earnings on food.
“Families in rural communities are already stretched thin, and this conflict is making everyday necessities even more expensive,” CAP senior fellow and analysis co-author Anne Knapke said Friday. “Higher gas prices, rising fertilizer costs, and more expensive groceries are all contributing to an affordability crisis that this president is making worse every day.”
Asked earlier this week if he thinks about the financial hardship his war is inflicting on Americans, Trump flippantly replied, "Not even a little bit."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'This Is War Profiteering': Fertilizer Giants See Fortunes Boom as Trump Militarism, Tariffs Hurt Farmers
"While a few agrochemical giants shamelessly reap bumper profits, farmers are watching their livelihoods wither on the vine," said one Greenpeace campaigner.
May 13, 2026
Democratic lawmakers on Wednesday underscored how the US-Israeli war on Iran and Trump administration trade policies are hurting farmers and consumers while Big Ag profits from fast-rising fertilizer and food prices.
President Donald Trump's illegal war of choice has resulted in the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, through which around 30% of the world's fertilizer and 20% of its oil previously passed. In addition to increasing the risk of a global food crisis, the strait's closure has sent fuel and fertilizer prices soaring, with US farm diesel costing nearly 50% more than it did on the war's eve in February and nitrogen fertilizer rising by a similar percentage.
Meanwhile, Trump's erratic tariff war has further squeezed farmers and consumers. Tariffs have increased short-term prices, market volatility, and farmer costs while temporarily reducing import flows.
Vermont farmers "are footing the bill for Trump's reckless war in Iran," Rep. Becca Balint (D-Vt.) said Wednesday on social media. "Fuel and fertilizer costs are surging right amid planting season, hitting family farms that are already stretched thin. This needs to end."
Rep. Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.) said on X that "food prices are skyrocketing because 70% of farmers can't afford fertilizer, due to Trump's reckless Iran War," adding that "perhaps Trump should help them out by lending some, given that he's full of crap."
Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.) noted Tuesday on Bluesky that "Minnesota’s farmers are dealing with tariffs, high fertilizer costs, expensive feed, and exorbitant fuel prices," while Trump is "planning to lay off dozens" of US Department of Agriculture workers "who help farmers protect their land and water."
The lawmakers' posts followed Tuesday's US Senate Agriculture Committee hearing on fertilizer market challenges, during which members of the Republican majority spoke vaguely of "trade disputes" and the "recent conflict in the Middle East" without naming names.
When it was her turn to speak, Ranking Member Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) noted the "direct link" between the soaring price of nitrogen fertilizer components and Trump's actions.
"In the months since the president started the war, with no consultation or authorization from Congress... urea has spiked more than 40%, the cost of diesel has hit near record highs in Midwest states," she said. "Now, why? Well, nearly half of the global urea goes through the Strait of Hormuz. Thirty percent of ammonia goes through the Strait of Hormuz."
Farmers are facing fertilizer prices that are through the roof because of the across-the-board tariffs, market consolidation, and uncertainties stemming from a war in Iran that was started with no consultation or authorization from Congress.
[image or embed]
— Senator Amy Klobuchar (@klobuchar.senate.gov) May 12, 2026 at 5:51 PM
"Yet, even before the war, farmers were walloped by the presence of across-the-board tariffs," Klobuchar continued. "An analysis by North Dakota State University... found that [International Emergency Economic Powers Act] tariffs added nearly $1 billion in costs to critical inputs like fertilizer, seed, machinery, and chemicals from February through October of last year."
"Acting now will ultimately help stabilize prices and give farmers the certainty they need," the senator added. "But it is going to have to be a combination of things: ending the tariffs, or reducing them, or making them much more targeted; ending this war; finding a way to resolve it, so the Strait of Hormuz is open again; and then going at this long-term systemic problem about the lack of competition in this area."
According to the advocacy group Farm Action, a handful of companies—primarily Nutrien, Mosaic, and CF Industries—dominate the North American fertilizer market, operating as an oligopoly that controls over 90% of nitrogen and potash production. Saskatchewan-based Nutrien, the world's leading potash producer, last week reported net first-quarter earnings of $139 million, up from $19 million one year ago.
"Fertilizer companies raise their prices because they can, and that's the market power that they have," Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.) said during Tuesday's hearing.
Noting record gains reaped amid the tumult of Russia's ongoing invasion of Ukraine, Smith said that during 2021-22, "the nine largest fertilizer companies made an estimated $84 billion in profits."
"In 2022, major fertilizer companies saw profits increase somewhere between 100 and 200%," she continued. "Their input costs did not go up by that much... How much do you think the profits of the average farmer in South Dakota [went] up during that time period?"
Pointing to new reports of robust fertilizer industry profits, South Dakota Corn Farmers president Trent Kubik replied, "during these last 75 days, a lot of money was being made, but it wasn't by farmers."
Addressing the question of "what can we do to change the behavior of companies that are in a position where they can charge such high prices and get such exorbitant profits," Smith suggested considering a "windfall profits tax" to "make the market more fair, particularly for folks that are doing the work."
The Trump administration's plan to counter high fertilizer prices includes reopening the Biden-era Fertilizer Production Expansion Program, which provides grants and financing to build or expand domestic manufacturing capacity. Some critics have slammed the program as a form of corporate welfare.
The administration is also considering further expanding a multibillion-dollar bailout program, which critics say has mainly benefited large-scale, export-oriented commodity farms.
Responding to recent reports of strong profits for nitrogen fertilizer producers, Greenpeace Aotearoa (New Zealand) Big Ag project lead Amanda Larsson said Tuesday that “the illegal US-Israeli attack on Iran has sent global fertilizer prices soaring, and while a few agrochemical giants shamelessly reap bumper profits, farmers are watching their livelihoods wither on the vine."
"This is war profiteering facilitated by a broken, fossil fuel-dependent food system—with farmers and consumers paying the price," she continued.
“Synthetic nitrogen fertilizer causes water and climate pollution, while propping up a system of industrial over-production, particularly to produce monoculture feed crops for livestock," Larsson said. "We are sacrificing our rivers, our climate, and our financial security to prop up a system that serves billionaires, not communities."
“We cannot buy food security on a volatile global chemical market," she added. "The only path to true food sovereignty and resilience is through a transition to ecological farming. By moving away from synthetic fertilizers and toward diverse, nature-based practices, we can break the cycle of chemical dependence, protect our water, and ensure that the price of food is no longer dictated by the whims of war and corporate greed.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Soil, Not Oil
Petrochemical fertilizers built modern agriculture. The Iran War may be what finally breaks it—and opens the door to something better.
May 05, 2026
As the US-Israel war in Iran drags on, here at home, the billions spent on the war and the spiking gas prices drive the political conversation. The impacts on world food supplies could be far more consequential, though, raising questions about our dependence on globally traded chemical fertilizers—and about the alternatives.
Depending on Industrial Agriculture
The global food system relies on massive applications of petrochemicals, and up to 30% of fertilizer trade comes through the Strait of Hormuz. With the exception of pre-industrial and organic or regenerative practices, the world’s agriculture relies on these chemicals, making them vulnerable to price shocks and supply constraints.
Nitrogen fertilizer prices have climbed by 30% since the initial attack on Iran on February 28; urea prices have increased by 47%. Seventy percent of farmers responding to an American Farm Bureau survey say they are unable to afford all the fertilizer they need. Meanwhile, farm diesel prices have increased 46% since the end of February.
The effects of these price shocks take time to ripple through the planting and harvesting season, but they will likely show up as higher prices, along with empty store shelves, and—especially in impoverished regions—hungry children. Farmers are already making tough choices about what, and if, to plant given the colliding impacts of tariffs, extreme weather related to climate change, and the ongoing blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.
The Iran war’s fertilizer choke hold is just one reason regenerative agriculture deserves our active support.
“Every fossil fuel crisis reminds us how vulnerable conventional agriculture is,” says Gabrielle Taus, managing director of the nonprofit group Commonland. "Farmers tied to synthetic fertilisers are exposed to price shocks they cannot control.”
Converging Shocks
These price spikes come just at a time when farmers are also being squeezed by President Donald Trump’s tariffs and by a chaotic climate. Much of the West and Southeast US is under drought emergency conditions. The Midwest has been hit by storms and extreme temperature fluctuations. The journal Nature Climate Change estimates that human-caused climate change has already reduced agricultural productivity by 20%.
These converging shocks are adding to interest in regenerative agriculture. While the definition of this form of agriculture varies—and the term can sometimes be used for greenwashing—regenerative agriculture relies on the resources at hand (or under foot) to nourish the soil, instead of purchasing fertilizer from global petrochemical corporations. By combining age-old techniques of cover crops and crop rotation, compost, and animal husbandry, the soil is nourished, not depleted, and it is better able to retain moisture. Unlike corporate farming, this form of agriculture offers a buffer from global conflicts and trade wars and the impacts of climate change. And the farmers who adopt this approach develop an understanding of how to best manage farms that can thrive in a particular place. And their practices could contribute to revitalizing not only fresh water sources and ecosystems but also the vitality of hollowed-out rural communities.
A Different Relationship to the Land
Many experts question whether regenerative agriculture can actually take the place of industrial agriculture. A decades-long study by the Rodale Institute, which advocates for organic methods, suggests that with skill and persistence, these techniques work. Their side-by-side plots in Kutztown, Pennsylvania compared regenerative practices, including cover cropping, crop rotation, and composting, with conventional agriculture. The result was yields up to 30% higher for sustainable methods during extreme weather, profits that were 3-6 times higher overall, the use of 45% less energy—and 40% lower carbon emissions.
The work of the farmers also shifts, from using massive machinery and one-size-fits-all industrial farming methods, to the sort of deep knowledge that comes from knowing the microclimate, soil conditions, and water supplies of a particular place.
Regenerative farms become a productive and integrated part of not only the natural ecosystem but the social system.
Among young farmers, regenerative practices are already taking hold. According to the National Young Farmers Coalition's 2022 survey of more than 10,000 farmers age 40 and younger, 86% already describe their practices as regenerative. With the average age of today’s farmers at 58 years old, a new generation of farmers will have a major say in how tomorrow’s crops are raised.
Matt Turino, who manages the Sustainable Farm at the University of Illinois campus in Champaign Urbana, works with students who are learning the skills of sustainable and regenerative farming. “They talk a lot about growing food in their communities, resilient food production, changing the food systems so they’re not relying on international markets and big international disruptions like the Strait of Hormuz situation,” he said. They want a more ecologically minded food system, he added, that is healthy for their families and for the environment.
These practices could offer the next generation a livelihood that artificial intelligence cannot replace and that distant wars and blockades cannot upend.
The Alternative Already Underway
Soil health is key to any farming. Regenerative practices enhance the microorganisms, organic content, and nutrients that comprise a healthy soil ecosystem. These practices not only result in higher yields, crops that are better able to resist disease and pests, and better water retention—they also enable soil to pull carbon out of the air and form it into a healthy part of the soil ecosystem.
Agriculture is responsible for about a third of all human-caused greenhouse gas emissions. Addition of nitrogen fertilizer to croplands is a powerful source of climate pollution, but regenerative approaches can actually store carbon deep in the soil, reducing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. And these approaches avoid the fish-killing algae blooms and cancer clusters suspected to be caused by nitrogen fertilizer runoff.
At a time when fresh water is becoming scarce as a result of overuse and drought, regenerative approaches increase the capacity of soils to hold water and to prevent the erosion and flooding that results from compacted soils. For every 1% increase in soil organic matter, soil is able to hold 20,000 gallons more per acre, according to the US Department of Agriculture.
Many regenerative farmers raise animals along with crops. Rotational grazing and the use of manure helps build soil health. This is a marked contrast to today’s giant animal factory farms, where workers are poorly paid and at risk of injury, and animals are penned up inhumane conditions, while overflows of manure threaten fresh water supplies.
Regenerative farms become a productive and integrated part of not only the natural ecosystem but the social system.
Knowledge Is the Foundation
Regenerative farming offers the intriguing possibility of ecosystem recovery and the recovery of rural communities.
For decades, the growth of industrial farming has pushed out small and medium-sized farms. Especially hard hit are farms owned by African American and Latino families. As a few giant landowners manage farms that once provided livelihoods to many smaller farm families, rural communities across the United States have been hollowed out. As farms are sold off, the local farm supply stores, mechanics, veterinarians, insurance brokers, schools, and restaurants that once served farm families closed up.
The competitive advantage of a regenerative farmer is their deep knowledge—not the adoption of one-size-fits-all chemical regimes and expensive technology. They learn the sorts of skills and wisdom our farming ancestors had. Regenerative practices require an understanding of particular microclimates, water availability, and soil conditions. The farmer must learn to choose seed varieties and to implement practices that optimize for human and ecological health as well as for economics.
If anything positive emerges from the war in Iran, it could be the expanded awareness that we do have choices about the future of agriculture.
“The particular knowledge of particular places is beyond the competence of any centralized power or authority,” writes Kentucky farmer and poet Wendell Berry in his book, What Are People For? (Counterpoint Press 1990) “Farmers must tend farms that they know and love… using tools and methods that they know and love, in the company of neighbors that they know and love.”
“We uplift the honor and dignity of labor,” say the creators of Soulfire Farm, an Afro-Indigenous community farm and training center located in upstate New York. “We center the sharing of practical, tangible, land-based skills that contribute to community self-provisioning and self-determination. With wise effort, our work is our love made visible.”
The Iran war’s fertilizer choke hold is just one reason regenerative agriculture deserves our active support. Regenerative farming can prevent the pollution of increasingly scarce fresh water resources, rebuild depleted soil, and slow climate change. These practices are more resilient and able to adapt to weather shocks, and they provide a source of stable employment at a time when jobs of all sorts are being displaced by AI. And with permanent farm employment come the opportunities for families to once again inhabit and rebuild hollowed-out rural communities.
It is hard work, and unlikely to make anyone rich. But regenerative farmers and ranchers say “their notion of ‘success’ goes beyond yield and farm size,” according to Lara Bryant, at the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group. “It includes things like joy and happiness, the number of families they feed, watching how the land regenerates and flourishes, the money saved from not purchasing chemical inputs, the debt avoided by repurposing old equipment, and the relationships built with community members.”
If anything positive emerges from the war in Iran, it could be the expanded awareness that we do have choices about the future of agriculture.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More Stories
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy