

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.
One critic said the administration clearly plans to weaken restrictions requiring "the Forest Service to carefully manage our natural resources and listen to the public, then open the gates to industry and extraction."
Still under fire for attacking the Roadless Area Conservation Rule this week, President Donald Trump's administration provoked a fresh wave of criticism on Friday by targeting another policy meant to protect public lands.
The US Forest Service announced Friday that it was moving forward with a proposed revision to the Travel Management Rule that "simplifies the regulatory requirements to enhance quicker local decision-making and increase access, including for motorized vehicles, e-bikes, and other mobility devices."
While leaders at the Forest Service and its parent agency, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), framed the pending changes as progress, Defenders of Wildlife called out the administration for trying to "gut" the rule managing off-road vehicles.
"The USDA's announcement to gut the Travel Management Rule and the roadless rule in the same week is a one-two punch that together deals a tremendous blow to wildlife," said Vera Smith, who directs the advocacy group's national forests and public lands program, in a statement.
"The Travel Management Rule states simply that motorized vehicles must stay on routes and areas designated locally for that use," Smith said. "The Forest Service issued the rule over 20 years ago to curb damage from unmanaged recreation, reduce user conflict, and protect public safety. Rescinding it now is irresponsible and reckless."
Hilary Eisen, federal policy director at the organization Wild Montana, was similarly critical, explaining that "the Travel Management Rule is why dirt bikers and snowmobilers can share national forest lands with hikers and backcountry skiers without conflict. It's why our national forests provide habitat to support thriving wildlife populations. It is built on local decision-making, with a designation process that ensures that no user group gets steamrolled and all our national forest values are protected."
"Just two days after doubling down on repealing the roadless rule, this announcement makes the administration's plan obvious: Gut the rules that require the Forest Service to carefully manage our natural resources and listen to the public, then open the gates to industry and extraction," Eisen warned.
"Forest Service leadership has already shown during the roadless rescission how much it values public input, science, and expert management: not at all," she added. "Agency leadership has lost the public's trust, and should expect the public to hold them accountable."
Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins confirmed Tuesday that the administration was working to fully rescind the 2001 roadless rule that blocked road building and commercial logging on about 30% of all national forest land. She attempted to frame it as a move to prevent wildfires, but conservation groups contested her claims.
Josh Hicks, director of conservation campaigns at the Wilderness Society, declared that "opening our backcountry forests to more roads and development, and therefore more ignitions, is... not a wildfire solution, and never will be."
Criticism of that pending rollback had continued throughout the week, with the Wilderness Society's senior director of native lands partnerships, Starlyn Miller, calling out the administration's "failure to engage in meaningful government-to-government consultation with tribal nations," which she said "undermines tribal sovereignty and federal trust responsibilities."
"This failure disregards tribes' deep cultural, historical, and ongoing connections to these roadless lands and the clean water and wildlife they sustain," said Miller, a Little Shell Chippewa citizen who is of Menominee and Mohican descendant. "We stand with tribal nations and Indigenous communities in defending their freedom to shape and manage forests that are vital to their cultures, identities, and future generations."
National Congress of American Indians executive director Larry Wright Jr. also spoke out on Friday, saying that "tribal nations possess an inherent and legally recognized relationship with these lands, which remain the foundation of our cultural identities. Attempting to fast-track the removal of the roadless rule circumvents the mandatory government-to-government consultation process required by federal law."
Wright, who is from the Ponca Tribe of Nebraska, added that "upholding the federal trust responsibility means honoring our treaty rights and ensuring that the protection of sacred sites is recognized as an uncompromisable legal obligation, not an afterthought."
Trump has cleared the way for 45 million acres of protected forest to be opened for logging and construction in what one conservation group called the "largest evisceration of public lands protection in American history."
The Trump administration is moving to reverse a decades-old rule that protected 45 million acres of forest lands from logging and construction, in what the Center for Biological Diversity called the "largest evisceration of public lands protection in American history."
On Tuesday, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins announced that the US Forest Service had filed a proposed rule to fully rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, enacted under former President Bill Clinton, which had prevented road building and commercial logging on about 30% of all national forest land.
Rollins described the "roadless rule" as a barrier to government wildfire prevention efforts. "Across the country, we’ve watched preventable conditions—overgrown stands, insect outbreaks, and disease—turn healthy landscapes into tinderboxes,” she said. "For too long, outdated restrictions have kept tens of millions of forested acres off-limits to the very treatments that improve forest health and reduce wildfire risk to our communities."
But conservation groups argue that the administration's reversal of the roadless rule has little to do with wildfire prevention and everything to do with opening up protected lands to logging interests and other extractive industries, which have long pushed for the rule to be weakened.
Increasing logging on federal lands has been a major goal of Trump's second term, and repealing the roadless rule is part of that effort. An executive order signed in March 2025 calling for the "immediate expansion" of timber production said that federal policies had made the country unable to "fully exploit our domestic timber supply."
In June2025, when the US Department of Agriculture first announced plans to rescind the roadless rule, it said that increasing timber production would be one of the benefits. The USDA said the rule hurt “jobs and economic development” and that repealing it aligned with Trump's goal to eliminate "barriers that hamper American business and innovation."
Earthjustice has argued that, contrary to what the administration says, repealing the roadless rule will actually lead to more wildfires, not fewer.
It points to findings from the Forest Service that 9 in 10 wildfires are caused by human activity, including throwing cigarettes out of windows, leaving campfires abandoned, and driving cars on grassy areas, causing them to ignite.
A peer-reviewed study published in January in the journal Fire Ecology by researchers with the Wilderness Society found that fires are about four times as likely to start near a road as in roadless forests.
Another study by the Forest Service in 2020, during the first Trump administration, examined two decades of data and found that roadless forests actually received more fuel-reduction treatments per square kilometer than areas elsewhere in the National Forest System.
"Speculation that eliminating road prohibitions would improve forest health is not supported by nearly 20 years of monitoring data," the study concluded.
Josh Hicks, director of conservation campaigns at the Wilderness Society, said Tuesday, "Opening our backcountry forests to more roads and development, and therefore more ignitions, is... not a wildfire solution, and never will be."
While doing little to curb the recent increases in wildfires exacerbated by climate change, conservationists argue that repealing the roadless rule will pose other harms to communities and wildlife across the country.
“Roadless forests supply clean drinking water for tens of millions of Americans, are home to irreplaceable wildlife, and store enormous amounts of carbon,” said Gabrielle Berthel, forest advocate at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "Repealing the Roadless Area Conservation Rule would allow for the fragmentation of some of the last intact forest ecosystems in the country, with irreversible consequences for the communities that rely on these forests and the people who seek out these special places for recreation."
The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) noted that these forests serve as habitats for numerous threatened species that risk being disrupted, including American wolverines, Canada lynx, grizzly bears, and northern spotted owls.
Randi Spivak, the public lands policy director at the CBD, emphasized that "these are some of the last truly wild forests left in the country... Once you start bulldozing roads for commercial logging and industrial development, there’s no getting them back."
More than 625,000 public comments have been submitted to the Forest Service since plans to rescind the roadless rule were announced last June. The USDA will accept public comments on the proposal until September 21, after which the administration is expected to move toward a final rule later this year.
"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.
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.”
"As families struggle to keep food on the table, Congress must prioritize work on efforts to lower costs and help Americans stay afloat," said the Washington Democrat.
As Americans face rising grocery prices under President Donald Trump and rally behind progressive policies and primary candidates, US Rep. Pramila Jayapal on Thursday introduced a bill that shows what kind of proposals could become reality with more Democrats like her in Congress.
Inspired by a program in her own district in Washington state, the chair emerita of the Congressional Progressive Caucus introduced the Fresh Bucks for Fresh Produce Act, which would create a pilot program at the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) that gives households earning 80% or less of their area's median income $60 per month to buy fruits and vegetables.
The USDA pilot would be modeled on Seattle's Fresh Bucks initiative, in which enrolled households "experience a 31% higher rate of food security and consume at least three daily servings of fruits and vegetables 37% more often than those assigned to a program waitlist," according to University of Washington (UW) research published last August.
"I would classify both of those numbers as pretty large," study co-author Jessica Jones-Smith a professor at UW and University of California, Irvine, said at the time. "We don't routinely see interventions that work that well. It's a pretty big impact on diet in terms of what we can do from a policy perspective and expect to make a difference in food insecurity."
In Seattle—generally ranked as an expensive but livable metropolis—a single person living within city limits on a monthly income of $7,070, or $84,850 a year, can apply for the program. For a family of four, it's $10,095 per month, or $121,150 annually. In January, the city the welcomed over 4,500 more local households off its waitlist and increased monthly benefits from $40 to $60.
Those enrolled in Seattle's program can buy "fresh fruits and vegetables at supermarkets, and fresh, frozen, canned, and dried fruits and vegetables (with no added fats, sugars, or salt) at farmers markets and independent grocers" that accept Fresh Bucks cards.
Adam Porter, who directs the Meals on Wheels program at the Seattle-based Sound Generations, said Thursday that "older adults across King County are facing impossible choices as grocery prices continue to rise. Seattle's Fresh Bucks program has had a substantial impact on our clients' health and quality of life: We have seen firsthand how a targeted produce benefit can increase health equity, improve food security, and keep food dollars circulating locally.
"A USDA pilot modeled on that success would be a meaningful step toward healthier households and stronger community food systems nationwide," Porter continued. In addition to his organization, groups endorsing Jayapal's bill include the Center for Biological Diversity, Coalition for Organic and Regenerative Agriculture, Farm Action Fund, Food & Water Watch, National Education Association, Southern Poverty Law Center, White Center Community Development Association (WCCDA), and over a dozen more.
"In White Center and historically underinvested communities across King County, we see every day how rising grocery costs continue to strain working families, seniors, immigrants, and households already navigating increasing housing and living expenses," said WCCDA executive director Aaron Garcia. "Access to healthy, culturally relevant food should not be determined by income—it should not be considered a luxury."
"At WCCDA, we believe thriving communities require systems that make healthy food accessible, affordable, and attainable—and that investments in food access are investments in community health, economic stability, and opportunity," Garcia said. "We strongly support Congresswoman Jayapal's leadership in advancing innovative solutions that respond to the realities families face today while strengthening local food systems and neighborhood businesses that give us our vibrancy."
"Expanding the proven Seattle Fresh Bucks model through a federal pilot offers an opportunity to increase food security, support local producers and retailers, and help communities across the country build healthier, more resilient futures," he added.
Jayapal has celebrated recent primary wins by leftists in New York, and on Thursday, with the November midterms just four months away, she called out her Republican colleagues—who are trying to hang on to their narrow majorities in both chambers of Congress after using them to pass cuts to federal food and healthcare programs while giving more tax breaks to the rich.
"As families struggle to keep food on the table, Congress must prioritize work on efforts to lower costs and help Americans stay afloat," said Jayapal, who is joined in sponsoring the bill by Democratic Reps. Alma Adams (NC), Nanette Barragán (Calif.), Chris Deluzio (Pa.), Shomari Figures (Ala.), Jahana Hayes (Conn.), Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC), Andrea Salinas (Ore.), Adam Smith (Wash.), and Shri Thanedar (Mich).
"While Republicans in Congress enacted legislation to raise food prices and are hell-bent on cutting food assistance, Seattle is once again leading the way with the Fresh Bucks program, which is successfully keeping people fed with nutritious food and reducing hunger," she said. "We must pass this legislation to expand the program nationwide and get families in every corner of the country healthy produce they can afford."
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."
"Trump and Musk’s DOGE 'saved' $15 million by cutting a program dedicated to preventing the spread of screwworm," said Rep. Pramila Jayapal. "Now, there’s an outbreak infecting our beef and the administration is spending $1 billion."
When Elon Musk's "Department of Government Efficiency" took its chainsaw to the federal bureaucracy last year, it created bottlenecks that may have hampered the fight against the screwworm infestation currently menacing the southwest while making it much more expensive.
The annual US Department of Agriculture (USDA) spending to combat the flesh-eating insects only amounted to about $15 million per year. But along with about $382 million aimed at combating animal-borne illnesses around the globe, it was terminated in March 2025 as part of DOGE's effort to root out what it described as government "waste."
But now, with the pests bearing down on Texas and New Mexico, and at least 12 infections already identified in the US as of Tuesday, the Trump administration is spending at least $1 billion to fight the outbreak.
Brooke Rollins last November: We have screwworm under control south of the border. Beef prices will come down by spring 2026.
(The screwworm has just been detected in Texas for the first time in 60 years) pic.twitter.com/ozXdI88jXk
— FactPost (@factpostnews) June 4, 2026
Last week, during a Senate hearing, Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins attempted to shift blame for the screwworm outbreak onto the Biden administration, while portraying herself and President Donald Trump as proactive in response to reports last spring that the insects were rapidly climbing through Central America.
Rollins said she asked Trump for "$1 billion to build a significant facility" in Texas that would breed hundreds of millions of sterilized male screwworm flies, a method that had been used to keep them contained in South America for decades. "Without hesitation, a couple questions, he said, ‘go.’”
That facility is expected to release around 300 million sterile flies per week. But it is not expected to be fully operational until the end of 2027.
In addition to the $15 million cut to monitoring the spread of the bugs from Panama, the Houston Chronicle reported that DOGE paused plans for a facility in Mexico that the Biden administration had authorized in 2024 as part of a $165 million emergency package to fight screwworm.
Amid mass layoffs at the USDA, it reported that funding for the facility—which was supposed to produce between 60-100 million sterile flies per week—was not announced until May 2025.
While the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) still says fly production at the facility is expected to begin "as early as summer 2026," it is still listed as "under construction."
Kevin Shea, who served as administrator of APHIS under the Obama administration and retired from the agency in January 2025, told the Chronicle that efforts to contain the screwworm were put on hold at the start of Trump's second term.
“This administration came in so skeptical of the career people, they didn’t really want to listen,” he said. “The hold up in the money going to Mexico for the sterile fly facility was most likely caught up in the whole DOGE thing. It probably looked like some sort of foreign aid.”
Journalist Christopher Collins wrote in the Texas Observer on Tuesday that, additionally, “deep staffing cuts" to APHIS, which lost nearly 1,900 employees during Trump's first year back in office, eliminated "the first line of defense against incoming parasites," who are responsible for "inspecting the cattle awaiting import from Mexico to ensure no screwworms are hitching a ride."
Not joking but @elonmusk should have to pay for this right?
You broke it, why do we all have to pay for it? https://t.co/7SSgyuP0yr
— Ryan Grim (@ryangrim) June 16, 2026
As the spread of screwworm across cattle country threatens to further drive up beef prices that have already increased by over 20% since Trump returned to office, critics of the administration are seizing on it to highlight the failure of the president's so-called "efficiency" initiative, which—despite the grandeur of Musk's cost-cutting claims—ended up costing taxpayers an estimated $165 billion, according to an April 2026 report from the nonpartisan Partnership for Public Service.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) called the screwworm saga a prime example of DOGE's "peak incompetence."
"Trump and Musk’s DOGE 'saved' $15 million by cutting a program dedicated to preventing the spread of screwworm," she said. "Now, there’s an outbreak infecting our beef and the administration is spending $1 billion."
Reacting to the news that the government was spending at least $1 billion to confront the screwworm crisis, Drop Site News co-founder Ryan Grim wrote on social media, "Not joking but Elon Musk should have to pay for this right?"
"You broke it," he said, tagging the man who recently became the world's first trillionaire. "Why do we all have to pay for it?"
"This has nothing to do with Joe Biden," one senator said, "but Trump and DOGE definitely screwed our cattle industry."
The Trump administration has emphasized in recent days that the New World screwworm infection found in a calf in Texas did not pose a threat to the United States' larger cattle herd, which is at its lowest point in 75 years due largely to drought conditions—but the US Department of Agriculture is now acknowledging that cases of the parasite have been found outside the Texas containment zone and as far away as in New Mexico, as Republican officials attempt to blame the Biden administration for the outbreak.
While Democratic lawmakers are among those connecting the arrival of screwworm—a flesh-eating bug that feeds off the living tissue of warm-blooded animals and had been eradicated in the US in 1966—to cuts by President Donald Trump's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) that specifically targeted screwworm monitoring programs, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins doubled down on claims that an "open border policy" under the Biden administration was to blame.
"This does trace back to the last administration and the open border policy, and the movement of millions of people and their animals up from South America through Central America," said Rollins with certainty on Monday.
As David Dayen explained at The American Prospect Tuesday, former President Joe Biden placed a ban on bison, horse, and cattle imports from Mexico in 2024, which Trump lifted in February 2025. At the same time, DOGE, under the leadership of Trump megadonor and tech billionaire Elon Musk, cut screwworm monitoring efforts and animal disease control and prevention efforts, slashing 1,300 employees from USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
Rollins did reinstate the live import ban last May as screwworm cases were rising in Mexico and began funding prevention programs in Texas. But a $600 million facility for breeding sterile screwworm flies—a key component of successful eradication efforts—is not scheduled to be completed until late next year, and sterile flies that have been dispersed from a facility that opened in February at Moore Air Force Base in South Texas only amount to "about one one-hundredth of what it would take each week to eradicate the pest," Dayen wrote.
He also noted that Rollins has attempted to blame Biden—who has not been in office since January 2025—despite the fact that the total average lifespan of a screwworm fly is 21 days.
"The more likely explanation is that an administration with an antipathy to government ignored government’s purpose until it was too late," wrote Dayen.
The USDA established a 12-mile quarantine area around the affected area last week when the case was detected in South Texas, but on Monday the agency said another case had been found in Gillespie County, over 100 miles from where the initial case was reported.
A dog was also found to be infested in Lea County, New Mexico, more than 400 miles away.
The parasite is not expected to affect food safety, as it feeds on living tissue, but the outbreak raises concerns about rising beef prices, which are already high due to the low volume of cattle in the US. The high prices of fertilizer and fuel due to the war in Iran, and of equipment and repairs due to Trump's tariff policy, have also put a strain on the cattle industry.
“The cattle producer in the US has already been under extreme financial stress,” Joe Maxwell, president of Farm Action Fund and a farmer in Missouri, told The American Prospect. “This is serious, the screwworm outbreak. But it’s even more serious because of the financial position they were already under.”
In response to Rollins' claims, Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said Tuesday: "Let's be clear about what happened: DOGE cut the programs and staff that tracked dangerous outbreaks like screwworm."
"So this has nothing to do with Joe Biden," she said, "but Trump and DOGE definitely screwed our cattle industry."
"This protects every Oregon family who depends on these programs to put food on the table," said the state's attorney general, who is among the 21 AGs behind the case.
A federal judge on Friday temporarily blocked an attempt by the US Department of Agriculture to force state governments to comply with President Donald Trump's positions on gender and immigration or lose out on billions of dollars in funding, including for food assistance.
The attorneys general of the District of Columbia and 20 Democrat-led states sued the department and Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins in March, arguing that "USDA has now thrown unconstitutional and unlawful roadblocks between the programs created by Congress and the states that rely on them, threatening critical nutrition support, vital agricultural research, and the safety of our national food chain and communities."
Specifically, the Trump administration imposed "a vague set of funding conditions relating to USDA's purported anti-discrimination 'policies,' 'gender ideology,' 'fair athletic opportunities' for women and girls, and immigration," without specifying the policies or even confirming "that certification is limited to currently existing policies," says the complaint, filed in the District of Massachusetts.
The March filing also makes the case that "even if USDA went back and cured its vagueness problem and conducted a reasoned analysis before taking final agency action, the challenged conditions would still be unlawful."
While US District Judge Myong Joun has not explicitly agreed, the appointee of former President Joe Biden granted a preliminary injunction sought by the AGs and said he would issue a memorandum explaining his decision at a later date.
Welcoming the judge's unexplained decision on social media, Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield highlighted that the move safeguards funding for school lunches, emergency aid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC).
"This protects every Oregon family who depends on these programs to put food on the table," Rayfield said. "The court rejected the Trump administration's attempt to hold school lunches, WIC, and SNAP hostage to its political agenda. These are lifelines for 86,000 Oregon kids, working families, seniors, and rural communities—and they will remain protected."
New York Attorney General Letitia James also celebrated that "we won a court order protecting billions of dollars in USDA funding as our lawsuit continues," and pledged that "my office will keep fighting to protect New Yorkers and stop the federal government from punishing our state for refusing to bend."
NEW: When Trump tried to gut billions in USDA funding for states refusing to comply with his anti-immigrant agenda, we sued.The court just ruled in our favor, blocking his cuts while our case continues.These grants are a lifeline - I'll always fight to protect food assistance for families.
— AG Andrea Joy Campbell (@massago.bsky.social) June 5, 2026 at 4:58 PM
The other states involved in the case are California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. Collectively, according to the complaint, "'plaintiff states receive over $74 billion annually in funding from USDA."
The judge's decision came on the heels of four Democrats in the US House of Representatives voting with Republicans to approve legislation that the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) has estimated would strip modest fruit and vegetable benefits from "nearly 5.4 million toddlers, preschoolers, and pregnant and postpartum WIC participants."
Already, since congressional Republicans passed and Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act last year, at least hundreds of thousands of Americans have lost federal food assistance. Last month, Trump's USDA chief suggested that some of them were receiving SNAP benefits fraudulently—without offering evidence—while others are "moving into the American dream and off of welfare."
Katie Bergh, a senior policy analyst at CBPP, responded that "unless the Trump administration has redefined 'the American dream' to mean 'losing the help your family needs to afford groceries because of federal cuts,' I have some bad news for Secretary Rollins."
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."
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.”
The White House budget proposal, said one expert, "would slash WIC’s fruit and vegetable benefit, leaving low-income pregnant women and new moms with only $13 per month to buy fruits and vegetables."
The head of the US Department of Agriculture said Monday that she is "proud" to be part of a Trump administration initiative purportedly aimed at promoting maternal health and wellbeing.
But President Donald Trump's budget proposal for the coming fiscal year would do the opposite by deeply cutting fruit and vegetable benefits for new and expecting mothers. If enacted, the White House's budget would reduce monthly fruit and vegetable aid from the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) from $52 to $13 for low-income mothers.
"Your budget proposal would slash WIC's fruit and vegetable benefit, leaving low-income pregnant women and new moms with only $13 per month to buy fruits and vegetables," Katie Bergh, a senior policy analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), wrote in response to a social media post by USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins, who said she is "proud to be part of the Trump administration’s major push delivering REAL support for expecting and new mothers."
Rollins, who has an estimated net worth of roughly $15 million, was among the top administration officials and lawmakers who took part Monday in a White House event touting "what the Trump administration has done to advance maternal health and support motherhood."
Absent from the event was any discussion of the administration's ongoing assault on food aid, which has had a direct impact on mothers across the country. NBC News on Monday reported the story of an Arizona mother of two young children who "should be exempt" from the 2025 Trump-GOP budget law's expansion of work requirements for recipients of federal nutrition assistance.
"She described being caught in a monthslong paperwork back-and-forth with state employees since February, when her benefits failed to arrive," the outlet noted. "Unable to reach anyone by phone, she finally decided to show up in person at the office in Surprise. On the morning she arrived at 7 am, her second visit that week, she had a backpack full of paperwork she was told she needed to provide to verify her income and expenses to have her benefits restored. But after waiting for four hours to speak with someone, she was told she needed more documentation."
"This administration is taking healthy foods away from children and mothers most at risk for nutritional deficiencies."
The budget proposal that Trump released in early April would strip around $1.4 billion in fruit and vegetable benefits from roughly 5.4 million parents and young children, according to a CBPP analysis. The new White House budget marks the second consecutive year the president has pushed for cuts to WIC fruit and vegetable benefits.
Congressional Republicans are attempting to enshrine the White House's proposed WIC cuts into law through the annual appropriations process, calling for $200 million in total reductions in WIC spending—with most of the cuts coming from fruit and vegetable benefits.
Georgia Machell, president and CEO of the National WIC Association, said last month that “these cuts break with the Trump administration’s support for WIC during the 2025 government shutdown and directly contradict the administration’s stated goal to ‘Make America Healthy Again.’"
"WIC is a proven public health investment during the most critical developmental stages: pregnancy, infancy, and early childhood," said Machell. "By slashing the fruit and vegetable benefits and not ensuring sufficient program funding, this administration is taking healthy foods away from children and mothers most at risk for nutritional deficiencies."
"This plan is short-sighted, hypocritical, and, if passed by Congress, will harm American families," Machell added.