

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.
"Take Iran—after promising no more wars and all that—but fuel, fertilizer, no more wars, you take tariffs, and all this goes to the heart of his base."
President Donald Trump's economic policies have hurt his own voters to such an extent that it's creating opportunities for Democrats in unexpected places, according to elections analyst Charlie Cook.
In an interview with The New Republic's Greg Sargent published Tuesday, Cook pointed to a number of Trump actions that have caused discontent among both swing voters and members of his base.
Cook pointed to Trump's illegal war with Iran as a particularly toxic policy, both because it broke a key 2024 campaign promise about no new wars in the Middle East, and because it has raised the price of countless consumer goods, including diesel fuel and fertilizer, both vitally important for US farmers.
"I mean, you take Iran—after promising no more wars and all that—but fuel, fertilizer, no more wars, you take tariffs," Cook said, "and all this goes to the heart of his base, of, you know, small-town, rural, farm, all of that."
"To have the people that are generally the most enthusiastic for you uniquely hurt," Cook added, "now, that’s new territory."
Cook said that Trump similarly hasn't helped himself with actions such as "redecorating the White House in Washington, self-aggrandizement, alienating allies, depleting military stockpiles," which the veteran analyst said further eroded voters' patience.
What the overall data shows, Cook concluded, is that Republicans are "underperforming in places that have just been gimme putts,” a development he described as “astonishing."
Cook isn't alone in noting the deep voter unhappiness. Some Republican running for reelection are showing signs of concern as well.
As noted in a CNN report published Monday, Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kansas) took out a negative ad targeting Democratic rival Adam Hamilton, whom polls suggest is creating a surprisingly close race in a state that Trump won by 14 points or more in all three of his presidential campaigns.
And Politico reported on Monday that Rep. Young Kim (D-Calif.) has deleted all references to Trump from her campaign's homepage, even though she used to tout herself as a "proven fighter who will stand with President Trump to deliver a bold America First Agenda."
According to CNN, Democrats in competitive races are hammering away at the broken promises Trump made on the economy during the 2024 presidential campaign, including his vow that prices would start coming down on his very first day in office.
"The word that I hear almost daily is ‘drowning,'" Rep. Kristen McDonald (D-Mich.) told CNN. "Families in my district are drowning, and it is so much worse for them now than it was two years ago."
Such an immense issue as food insecurity cannot be wholly solved by one channel or one institution alone; it takes policy advocacy, community organizing, and self-reliance moving hand-in-hand.
Bread for the World recently held its annual Advocacy Summit in Washington, DC. As a board member, I was honored to be part of conversations on how public policies affect people experiencing hunger and poverty. People from all walks of life and all backgrounds united with the common goal of developing institutions that advance food security.
This moment was especially full of policy discussions as midterm season is in full swing across the country. Leaders are itching to advance on the campaign trail. They are more likely to be on the ground listening to what we have to say, so the opportunity is ripe to share what we care about. We can ask them what they will do to reduce hunger and improve food security for those in poverty. We can push for accountability.
But first, we must understand the current policies and context today that create and maintain food apartheid.
As of the 2017 Census, Black farmers were reported to own just 0.32% of US farmland, a number which has been continuously decreasing over the past century. They are denied grants disproportionately to their white counterparts and earn approximately one-seventh of the income that their white counterparts bring in. Land ownership is steadily being stripped from us.
Hunger is not inevitable. It is possible to make change.
In the last year and a half, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) has been on the chopping block many times. Since July of 2025, well over 3.5 million people have been pushed out of the program as a result of cuts in the federal budget. Newly enacted work requirements unjustly require people to qualify themselves to eat.
SNAP’s program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) is facing even further underfunding. Recent cuts will take away over $141 million in funds to feed over 5 million new mothers and young children—particularly funds designated for fresh fruits and vegetables. They are literally taking food out of the mouths of children.
This says nothing of the centuries of racism, blocked resources, and stolen land that brought us here today. It barely scratches the surface of all the factors influencing security today. We are facing hateful rhetoric; regressive social policies; global instability; and widespread threats to Black, brown, and immigrant communities. All this uncertainty makes us feel vulnerable. It makes food security and, indeed, any economic stability more tenuous.
There is no question that we need change; now is the moment to demand it from our leaders. Just as there are policies that harm access to nutritious food, there are certainly policies that can expand access.
We can remove work requirements for SNAP that pick and choose who gets to eat without regard for what they are going through. We can expand funding and access so that no one is left without nutritious food to sustain them. We can enact reparations to return land and opportunities to Black communities, and we can support the Black farmers and organizations working to feed people.
But, as we raise our voices for policy change, we must not overlook actions in our own neighborhoods.
I will always fight for a more representative government which supports the needs of our people. However, the government is still imperfect to say the least; we cannot wait for them while hunger runs rampant. We can take matters into our own hands.
Community organizing and self-reliance offers security especially when our government fails us; this is what we work for at The Black Church Food Security Network. We meet people where they are. We grow the food ourselves and distribute it throughout the community. We work together to build autonomy within our own communities.
Such an immense issue as food insecurity cannot be wholly solved by one channel or one institution alone. It takes policy advocacy, community organizing, and self-reliance moving hand-in-hand. Progress is possible when we approach it as a united front.
As Bread for the World reminded us through the advocacy summit, hunger is not inevitable. It is possible to make change. If we come together to uplift our communities and advance essential policies, we can create an environment where people are not only fed, but they are in a better position to feed themselves.
One conservation advocate said the impact of wolves on livestock pales in comparison to that of "recent trade agreements and the reality of ranching in the arid West under changing climate conditions."
Although President Donald Trump was surrounded by farmers and ranchers while signing a pair of beef-related executive orders in the Oval Office on Friday, some critics cast doubt on their effectiveness—plus highlighted how one proposal could prove lethal for protected wolves.
Trump is facing high beef prices and the looming midterm elections. After meeting with Brazilian billionaire Joesley Batista, a key shareholder for JBS, the world's largest meatpacker, the president last month paused tariffs on 300,000 metric tons of beef for 90 days to be sold at a discount. While signing the new orders on Friday, Trump signaled that the cheaper beef will be imported from Argentina, Brazil, and "a couple of other places."
Trump's latest orders are intended to appease the US cattle industry, which was angry about the August proclamation, by "cracking down on major meatpackers' dominance of the industry and seeking to implement new labeling standards," Politico explained. However, "it's not clear whether any of the steps announced Friday will assuage ranchers' concerns or have any impact in the short term, given that most of them would require regulatory changes or congressional action."
Food & Water Watch (FWW) food policy director Rebecca Wolf said in a statement that "President Trump is on an apology tour after his deal to flood US markets with foreign-imported beef—it's not working. Today's executive orders will do nothing to reverse the last two years of Trump's disastrous food policy."
"Under his watch, consumer beef prices are at record highs, and ranchers can't make ends meet, all while the multinational meat monopolies profit hand over fist," she stressed. FWW found last month that while JBS reported $131.7 billion in revenue and $2.4 billion in profit, and fellow industry giant Tyson reported $82.65 billion in revenue and $681 million in profit, "prices are up 23% for choice beef, 24.2% for ground beef, 24.7% for ground chuck, and 25.2% for chuck roast."
Wolf noted that "US agencies charged with protecting market competition sit on the sidelines, made toothless by Trump's reckless job cuts," pointing to thousands of staff reductions across the Agricultural Marketing Service, Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, and threats to slash funding for the Department of Agriculture (USDA) Packers and Stockyards Division.
Since Congress repealed mandatory country-of-origin labeling (MCOOL) for beef and pork in 2015, FWW has been among those pushing for its restoration. Trump's order directs Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins, in consultation with the United States Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, to "review all statutory and regulatory authorities that may permit the establishment" of MCOOL for beef products, then issue or amend regulations, as permitted by law, and develop legislative recommendations.
"Consumers deserve to know where their food comes from. There is no excuse for keeping consumers in the dark."Tell the #WhiteHouse and #Congress, restore mandatory country-of-origin labeling for #Beef.#MCOOLSign & Share: form.jotform.com/262434091212...
[image or embed]
— Consumer Federation of America (@consumerfed.bsky.social) September 3, 2026 at 8:52 AM
As a diverse coalition that includes FWW circulates a "Label Our Beef" petition, Wolf said Friday that "it is clearer than ever that Congress must heed popular demand and restore mandatory country-of-origin labeling to give American producers an even playing field. And Trump must put his money where his mouth is and fund antitrust and fair trade enforcement to truly help American families and ranchers."
While FWW declared that "Trump's beef executive orders won't help consumers or ranchers," Angela Huffman, president and CEO of Farm Action, was more diplomatic, welcoming the language on MCOOL, meat processing, and Packers and Stockyards Act enforcement.
"These actions show the administration is listening to problems farmers and ranchers have raised for years, and we appreciate that," Huffman said. "They move in the right direction, but stop short of the stronger reforms independent producers need."
Farm Action supports legislation to restore MCOOL for beef, as well as Packers and Stockyards Act enforcement, but has argued that the latter "should be paired with stronger producer protections" and urged USDA "to reverse its planned rescission of the Inclusive Competition and Market Integrity rule, which would protect producers against undue prejudice, unjust discrimination, retaliation, and deceptive practices."
As for the harm that Trump's orders could do, one directs Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum to "make a determination as to whether the gray wolf and the Mexican wolf have met the recovery criteria for delisting or downlisting under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and, if he determines that the recovery criteria has been met," begin the process to end protections.
In addition to working with other officials on a legislative recommendation to strip federal protections from wolves, Trump told Burgum to "engage with states to encourage them to delist gray wolves and Mexican wolves from any state-specific lists of protected species and to revise their standards" for killing the animals "to assist ranchers in combating predation."
During an exchange in the Oval Office, Trump falsely suggested that ranchers can now shoot protected wolves.
Trump’s audience uncomfortably laughs as he makes a premature announcement that ranchers can now kill wolves who are on the endangered species list
[image or embed]
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) September 4, 2026 at 2:41 PM
Kitty Block, president and CEO of Humane World for Animals, responded Friday that "the war on wolves needs to end, not escalate. They remain absent from much of their historic range and vulnerable to the same cruel trophy hunting, recreational trapping, bounties, and other relentless killing that nearly wiped them out of the lower 48 states. Rolling back federal protections now—or setting that process in motion—would jeopardize decades of recovery and open the door for brutal killing."
"Gray wolves are essential to healthy ecosystems, and decisions about their survival should be based on science, not political favors to farmers and ranchers whose livelihoods are threatened not by wolves but by tone-deaf global trade policies," she added.
Advocates at the Center for Biological Diversity, Grand Canyon Wolf Recovery Project, Sierra Club Grand Canyon Chapter, Western Watersheds Project, WildEarth Guardians, Wildlife for All, and Wolf Conservation Center also ripped the order's wolf language.
"This is a huge distraction to placate a handful of ranchers and make them believe that wolves are a greater threat than President Trump's own policies," said Greta Anderson, deputy director of Western Watersheds Project. "The impact of wolves on the livestock industry [pales] in comparison to the impacts of recent trade agreements and the reality of ranching in the arid West under changing climate conditions."
Claire Musser, executive director of the Grand Canyon Wolf Recovery Project, emphasized that "the Mexican gray wolf is not recovered simply because the population has grown... With just 317 wolves in the wild and a population still facing serious genetic challenges, weakening federal protections now would put decades of recovery work at risk. Decisions about the future of lobos must be based on the best available science and what these wolves need for long-term recovery, not political pressure."
Arguing the wolves "desperately need more care and less persecution," Michael Robinson, a senior conservation advocate at the Center for Biological Diversity, promised that "we’re prepared to prove in court that downlisting Mexican wolves and a steep increase in killings would not only be cruel but also deeply unwise and illegal."
If we want to keep farmers on their land and help underrepresented communities break into agriculture, we’ll need a consistent, predictable policy.
America’s farmers understand that some degree of uncertainty comes with the job. They can’t control the weather, after all. But for most of them, the biggest source of uncertainty is not nature, but politics.
As US foreign and domestic policy becomes less predictable, it becomes more difficult for families who work the land to make informed long-term decisions.
The partisan wrangling over the most recent Farm Bill provides the perfect example. This legislation would give farmers more access to government-backed credit, help them sell their crops overseas, and provide much-needed relief to those facing droughts or floods. Unfortunately, the process of passing it devolved into a partisan slap fight due to Republicans’ insistence on cutting the food stamps low-income Americans rely on to feed their families.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), himself a farmer, could hardly believe how ugly the process got. “I think every other Farm Bill that I’ve worked on in the 46 years I’ve been in the United States Senate has been a bipartisan bill,” he told the press. If future Farm Bill negotiations prove equally contentious, it could lead to disastrous funding lapses for key agricultural programs.
The farming sector can only manufacture so much certainty in the marketplace when Republicans keep changing the marketplace rules, ignoring the very forgotten men and women in rural America that they espouse to protect.
The Trump administration’s ongoing war with Iran has only added fuel to the uncertainty fire for America’s farmers. About one-third of the world’s seaborne fertilizer trade passes through the Strait of Hormuz, which has mostly remained closed since the bombs started falling on February 28. Within weeks, urea prices spiked from a pre-war level of less than $500 a ton to over $700 a ton, and although they’ve fallen since then, prices remain significantly higher than they were just two years ago and have continued to fluctuate amid tense negotiations and broken ceasefires.
Another source of uncertainty is President Donald Trump’s global trade wars. It’s true that some of his trade agreements—like the one he reached with the United Kingdom last May—increased market access for American farmers. But it’s also true that those deals are only worth as much as the word of the president who made them. In February, Trump threatened to blow up his newly inked trade deals with the UK and other European nations unless they agreed to sell him Greenland. The ever-shifting legal justifications for Trump’s tariff regime muddy the waters even further.
Should a farmer invest in increased production to meet demand from new British buyers? Or will a surprise judicial ruling or fit of presidential pique cause the tariffs and trade deals that undergird those contracts to disappear overnight? Guess wrong and you might go bankrupt.
Closer to home, Trump’s refusal to renew the US-Mexico-Canada (USMCA) agreement has scrambled relationships between American farmers and their Canadian and Mexican customers and competitors. These stakeholders were just barely getting used to the new status quo after USMCA replaced NAFTA in 2020, and now they might have to start all over again.
Immigration policy also plays a role in creating uncertainty for farmers. A survey of 2,250 agricultural workers conducted by the United Farm Workers Foundation found that 88% of respondents worried about being detained or deported due to the increase in immigration raids at farms. The administration has mostly stopped these raids but could restart them at any time.
Some companies impacted by the Trump administration’s anti-worker, anti-farmer, nativist policies are trying their best to stabilize the agricultural industry’s conditions so that they can have more certainty. John Deere, for example, recently offered its unionized employees a contract extension that preserves its employees’ cost-of-living wage adjustments, no-deductible health coverage, and pension benefits through 2029. Even though the country is in a crop sector recession, the economic logic behind this proposal is sound because studies show that workplace anxiety severely impacts worker productivity. Giving workers additional certainty over their ability to put food on the table for their families thus improves both efficiency and employee retention. Nevertheless, the farming sector can only manufacture so much certainty in the marketplace when Republicans keep changing the marketplace rules, ignoring the very forgotten men and women in rural America that they espouse to protect.
An administration that thinks only in terms of news cycles is bad news for farm families who think in terms of seasons—or even generations. If we want to keep farmers on their land and help underrepresented communities break into agriculture, we’ll need a consistent, predictable policy. Our government might not be able to control the weather, but it should be able to pass a Farm Bill and play nice with our trading partners.
Buffeted by tariffs and an unprovoked war against Iran that sent the price of fertilizer through the roof, farmers easily stand out as the voting bloc most betrayed by Trump.
In late March, President Donald Trump addressed hundreds of farmers, ranchers, and agribusiness executives on the White House South Lawn at what he hyperbolically called “the single largest gathering of American farmers that the White House has ever seen.” In a rambling 35-minute speech that was ostensibly about the Farm Bill, he lambasted the Biden administration and “environmental terrorists,” lauded US military might, boasted that his ballroom will be the finest in the world, and gushed over a gold-wrapped tractor parked nearby. But he dedicated most of his speech to impress upon the crowd that “American farmers, ranchers, growers, and producers once again have a true friend and champion in the Oval Office.”
“You’re very, very special people,” Trump concluded. “I’ll never forget we won like such a number like nobody’s ever won before. You voted for me. I will never forget that. I’ll never forget the friendship—the great friendship that we’ve had.”
Indeed, the overwhelming majority of the nation’s 3.4 million farmers, 95% of whom are white, went for Trump in the 2024 election. He received nearly 78% of the votes in the 444 counties most dependent on agriculture.
But now, an increasing number of farmers are experiencing buyer’s remorse. Buffeted by tariffs and an unprovoked war against Iran that sent the price of fertilizer through the roof, they easily stand out as the voting bloc most betrayed by Trump. The resulting inflation has pushed many small farms to the brink of financial ruin. It has gotten so bad that even conservative think tanks generally aligned with Trump are griping.
It is virtually impossible to predict how farm country voters’ dissatisfaction with Trump administration policies will play out in the November midterm elections.
Earlier this year, researchers at the libertarian Cato Institute, founded by billionaire industrialist Charles Koch, bemoaned the impact Trump’s tariffs are having on farmers. “The Trump administration continues to tell America’s farm community that this is a golden age and that the administration’s tariffs are working,” they wrote. “The data tell a different story.”
More recently, Marc Short, a former Koch network official who now chairs Advancing American Freedom, a right-wing advocacy group founded by former Vice President Mike Pence, was even more explicit. In a June opinion piece in The Washington Post, he charged that “President Trump’s policies have punched farmers in the mouth.”
In April, the American Farm Bureau Federation published a survey of 5,700 farmers detailing the pain they are experiencing due to Trump administration policies. Nearly 60% said their financial situation has worsened since last year. Only 6% said they were doing better. Nationwide, 70% said they could not afford the fertilizer they needed, while in the Farm Bureau’s southern region, where Trump won 12 of 13 states, nearly 80% said they could not afford it. Smaller farms, which “are less likely to secure fertilizer ahead of the season” than larger operations, the Farm Bureau noted, were hardest hit.
Based on US Department of Agriculture (USDA) forecasts, Farm Bureau economist Faith Parum predicted that farmers may not receive any “meaningful” relief next year. Even if fuel and fertilizer prices drop, they will still face “higher prices for seed, chemicals, repairs, labor, machinery, and cash rents expenses,” she pointed out, concluding that at “a time when commodity prices remain under pressure and margins are already thin, higher operating expenses will place additional strain on farm viability.”
Many farmers have already lost their struggle for viability. Last year there were 315 Chapter 12 family farm bankruptcies across the country, a 46% increase from 2024. This year, according to the Trump administration’s own data, farm insolvency is expected to grow to as many as 330 bankruptcies and a record debt of $625 billion. In April alone, there were 62 farm-related bankruptcies, the highest one-month total since 2020 during the first Trump administration.
“Each year that we don’t start on the upswing is just more and more stress on farmers, and I think the higher diesel prices, the higher fertilizer prices, it’s just made 2026 the breaking point,” Robert E. Moore, an attorney at Ohio State University’s Agricultural & Resource Law Program, told Ag Daily in May. “I think farm bankruptcies are more likely to increase than decrease over the next few years.”

Farmers voted overwhelmingly for Trump in 2016 only to see him launch a tariff war against China and other US trading partners that cost them $13.2 billion in annualized export losses from 2018 through the end of 2019, according to the USDA’s Economic Research Service. That debacle prompted the first Trump administration to give farmers $28 billion in direct payments to compensate them for their losses.
By contrast, farmers largely benefited from Biden administration policies. During their first three years in office, according to a January 2024 Politico analysis, the Biden and first Trump administration each authorized roughly $57 billion in direct USDA payments to farmers. But there was a crucial difference: Much of Trump’s aid was emergency compensation for losses caused by his own trade war with China, while the Biden administration focused more on supporting agriculture through conservation, rural development, and other long-term investments.
“Biden has been better for farmers than Trump,” Politico concluded. “Net farm income has actually gone up since the Democrat entered the White House. On average, net farm income has totaled $165 billion between 2021 and 2023, compared to $94 billion between 2017 and 2019. Farm income reached a record high of nearly $189 billion in 2022.”
Nevertheless, nearly 4 out of 5 voters in agriculture-dependent communities backed Trump in 2024, and this time around, farm losses could be much worse than during Trump’s first term. To be sure, Trump’s policies don’t bear all blame for their woes—farmers have been struggling with high production costs and low crop prices for years—but he is certainly piling on.
In 2025, even before Trump’s war against Iran, the Agricultural Risk Policy Center at North Dakota State University estimated losses of $35 billion to $44 billion for major commodity crops. The center also calculated that Trump’s most recent tariff war with China resulted in nearly $15 billion in annualized losses between March 2025 and February 2026, alone, 40% more than the loss of $10.6 billion due to Trump’s 2018-2019 trade war with China during his first term.
Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress are now trying to mollify farmers with bailouts and price protections that could amount to a record $55 billion this year, The Wall Street Journal reported late last month. But it is not clear how quickly or efficiently that aid could get to farmers given Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency cut 24,000 USDA staff members, many of whom assisted farmers with paperwork at the local level.
During a June trip to Wisconsin farm country, Trump urged farmers to be patient. “Your fertilizer prices are going to go way down, just like they were four months ago,” he promised. “Your fertilizer’s down, your energy’s down, your oil, your gas is all coming way down.”
So far, that hasn’t happened, but luckily for Trump, he has been able to depend on farmers’ patience, perhaps because they are aligned with him on so many other issues. Surveys show that white rural voters are more likely to believe that the 2020 presidential election was stolen; more likely to support political violence; and less likely to support democracy, racial diversity, and the idea that immigrants strengthen the nation—even though countless farming operations would fail without cheap immigrant labor.
Trump’s hold on farm country also is largely due to the real and imagined grievances rural whites have against “liberal urban elites” that Republicans have been stoking for decades, according to Nicholas Jacobs, an assistant professor at Colby College and co-author of the 2023 book The Rural Voter: The Politics of Place and the Disuniting of America. “It’s easy for an outsider to ask, ‘Why the hell are you still with this guy?’” Jacobs told the BBC. “But you have to understand that across rural America, the move toward Republicans long predates Donald Trump.”
On June 19, a Washington Post article quoted a Nebraska cattle rancher who questioned how much the agricultural sector can endure as more farmers go belly up. Farmers, he said, “have been rationalizing all of this chaos and saying it’s all going to be better later, but now they’re seeing that they may not be in the business any longer later.”
Four days before the Post story ran, Reuters/Ipsos posted a survey showing that Trump’s approval rating in rural America had hit a new low. Fifty percent of respondents approved of Trump, a 10% decline from February 2025. Trump’s disapproval rating among rural Americans, meanwhile, jumped from 34% to 48% over the same period.
A subsequent Harvard CAPS/Harris poll released last week, however, suggests that Trump’s falling support among rural voters may have stabilized. Trump had a 44% disapproval and a 52% approval rating, compared to an overall national approval rating of only 42%. For now, Trump’s appeal in rural America appears to be relatively strong.
It is virtually impossible to predict how farm country voters’ dissatisfaction with Trump administration policies will play out in the November midterm elections. Trump may not be on the ballot, but many of his Republican enablers in Congress and state governments will be. Will disillusioned farmers and their neighbors simply stay home, or has their “great friendship” with Trump soured enough that they pull the lever for Democrats? We will soon find out.
This article first appeared at the Money Trail blog and is reposted here at Common Dreams with permission.
What will help prevent future outbreaks is restoring and expanding regulatory agencies tracking infectious outbreaks, and breaking up food monopolies while sustaining and strengthening small farms.
The recent, record-breaking outbreak of Cyclospora infections linked to lettuce consumption has left Americans wondering what food is safe to eat.
What brands of lettuce are safe and which aren’t are important questions. But even more important might be why such outbreaks happen in the first place—and how our government has made them increasingly likely.
Nobody wants explosive diarrhea—and yet the way our federal government has left us unprotected is enough to make one sick.
The chief culprit in the cyclosporiasis debacle is our centralized, monopoly-based food system. The outbreak has been linked to Taylor Fresh Foods, which supplies many restaurants. Many brands of bagged lettuce and salad are also Taylor products—whether consumers realize it or not.
Last year the administration weakened the nation’s already thin food safety monitoring service, FoodNet, by making it optional to track numerous types of infections—including cyclosporiasis.
In fact, according to Farm Action, “Just four companies—Taylor Fresh Foods, Cultrale-Safra, Itochu, and Bonduelle—control 54% of the US fresh-cut salad market.” Similarly, only a handful of corporations control meat, dairy, grains, and beverages. Another handful controls food distribution.
This means that the industry practices giving rise to contaminated foods happen on a very large scale—and those foods are then distributed all over the country. That a single outbreak in one company can potentially impact the entire nation is a grave weakness in the food system.
Monopolies like Taylor Farms use the profits they generate from dominating our food supplies to lobby the federal government for weaker oversight. According to Wired, the company has contributed millions of dollars to conservative political committees, including a super PAC called MAGA Inc.
It has also spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to directly lobby against food safety regulations. News even emerged recently of representatives from Taylor Farms calling the White House to try to delay a recall of their lettuce.
The Trump administration has been more than happy to comply with Big Food’s wishes to reap billions in profits with little oversight.
Last year the administration weakened the nation’s already thin food safety monitoring service, FoodNet, by making it optional to track numerous types of infections—including cyclosporiasis. “We’re really gutting one of the cornerstones of food safety,” epidemiologist Elaine Scallan Walter warned The New York Times last September.
Mega monopolies aren’t just bad for our gut. They also contribute to higher prices and reduced access to fresh foods.
Their sheer size gives them what Civil Eats called “enormous power to make decisions about what food is produced how, where, and by whom, and who gets to eat it.” Big Food companies have repeatedly been found guilty of illegal price fixing. They routinely package the same foods under different labels to give the impression of diversity and competition.
Small farms are one important solution. Their supply chains are localized, making it easier to track and stop infections before they spread on a national scale. Independent farmers are selling out of lettuce at farmers markets as people seek out clean greens.
Yet instead of promoting and aiding small farmers—as he promised to do when running for president in 2024—President Donald Trump has cut back support for training new farmers, who might be competitors to companies like Taylor Farms.
His administration also cut a program that matched small producers with food banks—feeding hungry people while financially stabilizing independent farmers—along with a disaster aid program for minority farmers. The funding losses have left small farmers reeling.
What will help prevent future outbreaks is restoring and expanding regulatory agencies tracking infectious outbreaks. And breaking up food monopolies while sustaining and strengthening small farms.
The question is: Will the federal government have the guts to do what it takes to protect the American people’s guts?
"Trump’s decision to go to war with Iran drove up the cost of diesel fuel just as farmers were set to start their spring planting."
President Donald Trump's illegal war with Iran is putting significant financial stress on US farmers, according to a report issued on Thursday by Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee.
The report finds that US farmers spent $1.4 billion more on diesel fuel this year when planing corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton, and rice than they did a year ago, representing a 63% yearly increase.
The six states to get hit with the biggest yearly percentage increases in diesel costs all voted for Trump in three consecutive presidential elections: Florida (90.6% yearly increase in diesel costs), Alabama (86.2%), Oklahoma (85.9%), West Virginia (85.8%), Kansas (83.8%), and Indiana (79.5%).
Diesel prices in 2026 hit their peak right in the middle of planting season, and the report estimates that "the average farmer spent $1,500 more to refil their farm's onsite fuel tank... compared to the same high point during the 2025 planting season."
The report notes that it doesn't capture the full extent of economic damage caused the president's unlawful assault on Iran, as its analysis "doesn’t take into account other war-related increases such as the increased costs of running diesel generators that power some greenhouses or the increases at the pump that farmers and truckers face when they drive products to market."
The report adds that the economic pain being felt by farmers thanks to Trump's war will soon hit US grocery shoppers.
"Trump’s decision to go to war with Iran drove up the cost of diesel fuel just as farmers were set to start their spring planting," the report says. "This comes after Trump’s tariffs have already significantly increased costs for farmers and made it more difficult for them to plan for the future. These increased costs... are likely to further contribute to rising grocery costs."
According to data published by the US Energy Information Administration, diesel prices peaked in May this year when they averaged $5.60 per gallon.
While prices initially fell after Trump announced a ceasefire agreement with Iran in June, the war's resumption this month has sent them jumping upward again.
Data published by the American Automobile Association on Thursday showed that the average price of diesel in the US is now back up to $5.20 per gallon, an increase of $0.20 from one week ago.
Despite the economic turmoil caused by his illegal war of choice, Trump has shown little sign of backing off. In an interview with Axios published Thursday, the president said that he was “close” to making a decision on whether to authorize what he described as a “massive attack” on Iran that he vowed would be “bigger than ever before.”
Trump administration officials "did not act quickly on recommendations of career USDA staffers who sought to convey the seriousness" of a screwworm outbreak, according to a Wednesday report in Politico.
As the screwworm parasite spreads beyond initial contamination zones in Texas and New Mexico, some former US Department of Agriculture employees are pointing fingers at the Trump administration for exacerbating the crisis.
In a Politico report published Wednesday, three former USDA officials said that the administration's federal spending reviews have significantly hindered government efforts to contain the screwworm outbreak.
"USDA reviews held up funding for the construction of one facility that is crucial to slowing the flesh-eating pests threat to the US cattle supply," Politico reported, adding that "a $100 million research initiative designed to create new tools to slow the screwworm's advance was also delayed."
Two of Politico's sources also said the Trump White House "did not act quickly on recommendations of career USDA staffers who sought to convey the seriousness of a potential outbreak."
Politico's Rachel Shin also broke news on Wednesday that the Trump administration is plowing ahead with plans to carry out what she described as a "sweeping reorganization" of USDA that "will move thousands of employees out of the DC region," while "making clear workers must relocate if ordered or forfeit their jobs."
This report drew an angry reaction from Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.), who accused the administration of ignoring the serious threat the screwworm outbreak poses to American farmers' livelihoods.
"As screwworm continues to spread," Beyer wrote in a social media post, "Trump's USDA is prioritizing firing and relocating the public servants responsible for containing this outbreak instead of investing in the infrastructure needed to control it and prevent it from happening again."
Spending reviews and staff reorganizations aren't the only actions taken by the Trump administration that have hindered the screwworm outbreak response.
In the early days of the Trump administration, Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) axed a screwworm-monitoring program that only cost an estimated $15 million per year to maintain.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) on Tuesday called DOGE’s slashing of the monitoring program an example of its "peak incompetence."
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.
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.
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?
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.