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.
"It's a five-alarm fire," one Kentucky soybean farmer said, describing the harmful effects of the president's tariffs.
As anticipated, US President Donald Trump's economic and immigration policies are harming American farmers' ability to earn a living—and testing the loyalty of one of the president's staunchest bases of support, according to reports published this week.
After Trump slapped 30% tariffs on Chinese imports in May, Beijing retaliated with measures including stopping all purchases of US soybeans. Before the trade war, a quarter of the soybeans—the nation's number one export crop—produced in the United States were exported to China. Trump's tariffs mean American soybean growers can't compete with countries like Brazil, the world's leading producer and exporter of the staple crop and itself the target of a 50% US tariff.
"We depend on the Chinese market. The reason we depend so much on this market is China consumes 61% of soybeans produced worldwide," Kentucky farmer Caleb Ragland, who is president of the American Soybean Association, told News Nation on Monday. "Right now, we have zero sold for this crop that’s starting to be harvested right now.”
Ragland continued:
It’s a five-alarm fire for our industry that 25% of our total sales is currently missing. And right now we are not competitive with Brazil due to the retaliatory tariffs that are in place. Our prices are about 20% higher, and that means that the Chinese are going elsewhere because they can find a better value.
And the American soybean farmers and their families are suffering. They are 500,000 of us that produce soybeans, and we desperately need markets, and we need opportunity and a leveled playing field.
“There’s an artificial barrier that is built with these tariffs that makes us not be competitive," Ragland added.
Tennessee Soybean Promotion Council executive director Stefan Maupin likened the tariffs to "death by a thousand cuts."
“We’re in a significant and desperate situation where... none of the crops that farmers grow right now return a profit,” Maupin told the Tennessee Lookout Monday. “They don’t even break even.”
Alan Meadows, a fifth-generation soybean farmer in Lauderdale County, Tennessee, said that “this has been a really tough year for us."
“It started off really good," Meadows said. "We were in the field in late March, which is early for us. But then the wheels came off, so to speak, pretty quick.”
It started with devastating flooding in April, followed by a drier-than-usual summer. Higher supply costs due to inflation and Trump's tariffs exacerbated the dire situation.
“So much of what has happened and what’s going on here is totally out of our control,” Meadows said. “We just want a free, fair, and open market where we can sell our goods... as competitively as anybody else around the world. And we do feel that we produce a superior product here in the United States, and we just need to have the markets.”
Farmers are desperate for help from the federal government. However, Congress has not passed a new Farm Bill—legislation authorizing funding for agriculture and food programs—since 2018, without which "we do not have a workable safety net program when things like this happen in our economy," according to Maupin.
Maupin added that farmers “have done everything right, they’ve managed their finances well, they have put in a good crop... but they cannot change the weather, they cannot change the economy, they cannot change the markets."
"The weather is in the control of a higher power," he added, "and the economy and the markets are in control of Washington, DC."
It's not just soybean farmers who are hurting. Tim Maxwell, a 65-year-old Iowa grain and hog farmer, told the BBC Sunday that "our yields, crops, and weather are pretty good—but our [interest from] markets right now is on a low."
Despite his troubles, Maxwell remains supportive of Trump, saying that he is "going to be patient," adding, "I believe in our president."
However, there is a limit to Maxwell's patience with Trump.
"We're giving him the chance to follow through with the tariffs, but there had better be results," he said. "I think we need to be seeing something in 18 months or less. We understand risk—and it had better pay off."
It's also not just Trump's economic policies that are putting farmers in a squeeze. The president's anti-immigrant crackdown has left many farmers without the labor they need to operate.
“The whole thing is screwed up,” John Painter, a Pennsylvania organic dairy farmer and three-time Trump voter, told Politico Monday. “We need people to do the jobs Americans are too spoiled to do.”
As Politico noted:
The US agricultural workforce fell by 155,000—about 7%—between March and July, according to an analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics data. That tracks with Pew Research Center data that shows total immigrant labor fell by 750,000 from January through July. The labor shortage piles onto an ongoing economic crisis for farmers exacerbated by dwindling export markets that could leave them with crop surpluses.
“People don’t understand that if we don’t get more labor, our cows don’t get milked and our crops don’t get picked,” said Tim Wood, another Pennsylvania dairy farmer and a member of the state's Farm Bureau board of directors.
Charlie Porter, who heads the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau’s Ag Labor and Safety Committee, told Politico that “it’s a shame you have hard-working people who need labor, and a group of people who are willing to work, and they have to look over their shoulder like they’re criminals—they're not."
Painter also said that he is "very disappointed" by Trump's immigration policies.
“It’s not right, what they’re doing,” he said of the administration. “All of us, if we look back in history, including the president, we have somebody that came to this country for the American dream.”
“When military troops police civilians, we have an intolerable threat to individual liberty and the foundational values of this country,” said the head of the ACLU's National Security Project.
Leaders at the ACLU on Tuesday joined other rights advocates and elected Democrats in condemning US President Donald Trump's decision to deploy the National Guard to Memphis with a Monday order he signed beside Republican Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee.
“When military troops police civilians, we have an intolerable threat to individual liberty and the foundational values of this country,” said Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU's National Security Project, in a statement.
“President Trump may want to normalize armed forces in our cities, but no matter what uniform they wear, federal agents and military troops are bound by the Constitution and have to respect our rights to peaceful assembly, freedom of speech, and due process," Shamsi continued. "State and local leaders must stay strong and take all lawful measures to protect residents against this cruel intimidation tactic.”
While Lee expressed his gratitude to Trump for the order, some other elected officials in Tennessee have spoken out since Trump previewed his plans for Memphis on "Fox & Friends" last Friday.
The Associated Press reported on local opposition Monday:
“I did not ask for the National Guard, and I don’t think it’s the way to drive down crime,” Memphis Mayor Paul Young told a news conference Friday while acknowledging the city remained high on too many “bad lists.”
Young has also said that now the decision is made, he wants to ensure he can help influence the Guard’s role. He mentioned possibilities such as traffic control for big events, monitoring cameras for police and undertaking beautification projects.
At a news conference Monday, some local Democrats urged officials to consider options to oppose the deployment. Tami Sawyer, Shelby County General Sessions Court Clerk, said the city or county could sue.
State Rep. Justin Pearson (D-86), whose district includes parts of the city, declared, “We need poverty eradication, not military occupation!”
Denouncing Trump's targeting of Memphis on MSNBC, Congressman Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) said that "having the National Guard here is unnecessary and it is a stunt. It's just a Trump show, to show his power and his force."
"I think this may be the first representation of his changing the Department of Defense to the Department of War, because he likes to put the National Guard at his direction, as his being the great warrior, into cities and going to war," he added.
According to a White House fact sheet, Trump's memorandum tasks Secretary of War Pete Hegseth with requesting Lee "make Tennessee National Guard units available to support public safety and law enforcement operations in Memphis," and further directs Hegseth to "coordinate with state governors to mobilize National Guard personnel from those states to support this effort."
The order also "establishes a Memphis Safe Task Force tasked with ending street and violent crime in Memphis to the greatest possible extent, including by coordinating closely with state and local officials in Tennessee, Memphis, and neighboring jurisdictions to share information, develop joint priorities, and maximize resources to make Memphis safe and restore public order."
🪡Governor Bill Lee, Senator Marsha Blackburn, Rep. David Kustoff, and Sen. Brent Taylor have chosen fear-mongering and authoritarianism over real solutions. They voted to gut healthcare and food security from Memphians. Sending troops will not fix the failures they created.
— Indivisible Memphis (@indivisiblememphis.bsky.social) September 14, 2025 at 10:19 PM
Trump has already deployed the National Guard to Washington, DC, and Los Angeles, California, and threatened to do so in Chicago, Illinois, where his deadly "Operation Midway Blitz" targeting immigrants is already underway.
"Expanding military involvement into US civilian law enforcement is dangerous and unwarranted," Tanya Greene, US program director at Human Rights Watch, said Tuesday. "The Trump administration's continued deployment of military forces in cities with populations primarily comprised of people of color, like Memphis, risks exacerbating violence against immigrants, unhoused people, and poor people in general."
"While communities desperately need food, affordable housing, and healthcare," she added, "hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars are being squandered on these deployments."
Dissenting Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that "there is no constitutional justification" for the decision, and access to gender-affirming care "can be a question of life or death."
LGBTQ+ advocates decried Wednesday's U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding Tennessee's prohibition on gender-affirming medical treatments for minors as a dangerous green light for states to violate personal privacy and ban healthcare that many transgender people say saved their lives.
Writing for the 6-3 majority in U.S. v. Skrmetti, Chief Justice John Roberts stated that S.B. 1, Tennessee's 2023 ban on gender-affirming care for people under age 18, does not violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The majority concurred with a lower court's ruling that S.B. 1 is not subject to heightened scrutiny, a standard of judicial review also known as intermediate scrutiny used to determine a law's constitutionality, especially in cases involving classifications based on sex or gender.
"The Supreme Court is green-lighting the eradication of trans people from society."
"This case carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy, and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field," Roberts wrote. "The voices in these debates raise sincere concerns; the implications for all are profound. The equal protection clause does not resolve these disagreements. Nor does it afford us license to decide them as we see best."
"Our role is not 'to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic' of the law before us... but only to ensure that it does not violate the equal protection guarantee of the 14th Amendment," the ruling adds. "Having concluded it does not, we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process."
BREAKING: In a 6-3 Roberts decision, the Supreme Court has ruled that Tennessee's ban on gender affirming care is not subject to heightened scrutiny. This decision will strip millions of trans people off their constitutional rights.www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24p...
[image or embed]
— Alejandra Caraballo (@esqueer.net) June 18, 2025 at 7:17 AM
Roberts was joined in the majority by right-wing Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.
Sotomayor wrote in her dissent that "there is no constitutional justification" for the decision, which "does irrevocable damage to the equal protection clause and invites legislatures to engage in discrimination by hiding blatant sex classifications in plain sight. It also authorizes, without second thought, untold harm to transgender children and the parents and families who love them."
She continued:
Transgender adolescents' access to hormones and puberty blockers... is not a matter of mere cosmetic preference. To the contrary, access to care can be a question of life or death. Some transgender adolescents suffer from gender dysphoria, a medical condition characterized by clinically significant and persistent distress resulting from incongruence between a person's gender identity and sex identified at birth. If left untreated, gender dysphoria can lead to severe anxiety, depression, eating disorders, substance abuse, self-harm, and suicidality. Suicide, in particular, is a major concern for parents of transgender teenagers, as the lifetime prevalence of suicide attempts among transgender individuals may be as high as 40%. Tragically, studies suggest that as many as one-third of transgender high school students attempt suicide in any given year.
S.B. 1—introduced by Tennessee state Sen. Jack Johnson (R-23)—who was also behind the state's public drag ban—prohibits minors from undergoing hormone therapy or taking prescribed puberty blockers. Three transgender teens and their parents, as well as a Tennessee doctor who treats trans youth, challenged the law, claiming it violated the equal protection clause.
The plaintiffs were joined by the Biden administration along with the national and state ACLU, Lambda Legal, and the law firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP in asking the Supreme Court to review the ban after the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld it in September 2023.
Responding to Wednesday's ruling, Allison Scott of the Campaign for Southern Equality—which manages the Trans Youth Emergency Project (TYEP)—said: "I am heartbroken today. No one should be forced to leave their home state to access healthcare—and it is outrageous to see the U.S. Supreme Court uphold these bans and continue to allow the government to interfere with the personal medical decisions of families."
Scott was alluding to the argument often made by proponents of bans on not only trans healthcare but also abortion and other reproductive rights that people seeking such care are free to go where it is legal—even as some states pass laws banning such travel.
There are approximately 300,000 people aged 13-17 and 1.3 million adults in the United States who identify as transgender, according to the Williams Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law, which notes that more than two dozen states have passed laws similar to S.B. 1.
(Image: Human Rights Campaign Foundation)
Transgender activist Alejandra Caraballo, a civil rights attorney and instructor at the Harvard Law School Cyberlaw Clinic, said on the social media site Bluesky, "I can't begin to tell you just how incredibly fucked trans people are here."
"This will pour gasoline on the Trump administration's attacks on trans people and they will get even harsher and more cruel," Caraballo added. "The Supreme Court is green-lighting the eradication of trans people from society."
Caraballo and others including the ACLU and trans rights activist Erin Reed noted that the decision is somewhat limited because it leaves previous rulings against anti-trans laws intact. However, Caraballo warned that "while the decision didn't explicitly say heightened scrutiny doesn't apply to all contexts involving trans people, it held that it was on the basis of medical diagnosis."
Therefore, "the government could just do whatever it wants to trans people based on gender dysphoria," she wrote. "For instance, they could strip everyone with gender dysphoria of security clearance in the government. Declare everyone with gender dysphoria a national security threat and purge them from the government entirely. The trans military ban will be upheld under this."
"Most importantly, states can now just ban gender-affirming care for everyone, including adults," Caraballo added. "We'll likely see that coming soon in addition to federal government efforts to eliminate access for all trans people."
"This will pour gasoline on the Trump administration's attacks on trans people."
U.S. President Donald Trump has renewed and expanded his first-term attacks on transgender people, including by issuing a day one executive order declaring that only two genders exist, another order advocating action against educators who "facilitate the social transition of a minor," and yet another directing the Department of Education—which he has vowed to abolish—to notify school districts that allowing transgender girls and women to compete on female teams violates Title IX, the federal law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex in education.
Trump also appointed a transphobe to head the Justice Department's civil rights office, ordered the removal transgender people and issues from federal agency websites, and reinstated his first-term ban on new military enlistment by trans people, who—according to the White House—cannot lead an "honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle."
"Every day I speak with families of transgender youth who are worried about the future," TYEP patient navigator Van Bailey said after Wednesday's ruling. "Many are panicking, unsure of where or when they'll get the medicine that their child needs to continue leading a healthy, happy life. These laws are cruelly thrusting families into impossible choices, and it is deeply unfair."
As we wait for legal guidance from our partners at @aclu.org and @lambdalegal.org, we want to share what we already know:The Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. v. Skrmetti is devastating, and we will not stop fighting.
[image or embed]
— Christopher Street Project (@christopherstreet.bsky.social) June 18, 2025 at 8:34 AM
ACLU LGBTQ & HIV Project co-director Chase Strangio—the first openly trans attorney to argue before the Supreme Court—said that "today's ruling is a devastating loss for transgender people, our families, and everyone who cares about the Constitution."
However, Strangio also noted that "the court left undisturbed Supreme Court and lower court precedent that other examples of discrimination against transgender people are unlawful."
"We are as determined as ever to fight for the dignity and equality of every transgender person and we will continue to do so with defiant strength, a restless resolve, and a lasting commitment to our families, our communities, and the freedom we all deserve," he added.
Jennifer Levi, senior director of transgender and queer rights at GLAD Law, said in a statement that "the court today failed to do its job."
"When the political system breaks down and legislatures bow to popular hostility, the judiciary must be the Constitution's backbone," Levi added. "Instead, it chose to look away, abandoning both vulnerable children and the parents who love them. No parent should be forced to watch their child suffer while proven medical care sits beyond their reach because of politics."
"When the political system breaks down and legislatures bow to popular hostility, the judiciary must be the Constitution's backbone."
National Center for LGBTQ Rights legal director Shannon Minter asserted: "The court's ruling abandons transgender youth and their families to political attacks. It ignored clear discrimination and disregarded its own legal precedent by letting lawmakers target young people for being transgender."
"Healthcare decisions belong with families, not politicians," Minter added. "This decision will cause real harm."
Sasha Buchert, counsel and director of the Nonbinary and Transgender Rights Project at Lambda Legal, called the ruling "heartbreaking" and contended it will make it "more difficult for transgender youth to escape the danger and trauma of being denied their ability to live and thrive."
"But we will continue to fight fiercely to protect them," Buchert added. "Make no mistake, gender-affirming care is often lifesaving care, and all major medical associations have determined it to be safe, appropriate, and effective. This is a sad day, and the implications will reverberate for years and across the country, but it does not shake our resolve to continue fighting."
The Supreme Court’s Skrmetti decision is a pivotal moment in our fight for LGBTQ+ equality. Here are three ways to TAKE ACTION:
[image or embed]
— Human Rights Campaign (@hrc.org) June 18, 2025 at 9:26 AM
Human Rights Campaign (HRC), Lambda Legal, and other advocacy organizations are planning to hold a "decision day" rally at noon Wednesday outside the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C.
HRC lamented that Skrmetti "sets a dangerous precedent and threatens access to care for trans people across the country."
"We are showing up loud and clear: We will not go back," HRC said. "We will not be erased."