SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
water pollution
Trump’s Budget Plan Would Make America Sicker, Hungrier, Poorer, Dirtier, and Hotter
His spending vision depicts a country where basic government functions—like keeping water safe and providing safety nets—are destroyed and corporate polluters can do what they please in the name of profits.
Jul 22, 2025
U.S. President Donald Trump is using every tool at his disposal to carry out his destructive agenda. From the passage of his Big, Ugly bill in Congress to his avalanche of executive orders, he’s breaking down basic government functions to clear the way for billionaire benefits and corporate profits. His latest tactic? A spending plan that would dismantle federal programs that keep us safe from pollution, support farmers and families, respond to disasters, and more.
At the end of May, Trump released a proposal for agency spending to guide congressional committees as they craft the next annual spending bill. Not to be confused with the recently passed Big, Ugly Bill, the upcoming spending legislation will fund the basic workings of the federal government for the fiscal year ahead (in this case, October 2025 to September 2026).
Trump’s spending proposal (called his discretionary budget request) makes his vision for the country crystal clear: Unsafe food, dirty water, and worse health for the many. Industrial polluters spewing toxic chemicals, and a destroyed ability to respond to the climate crisis that endangers all of us. Millions of farmers, families, and workers struggling to get by, while corporations amass yet more profits.
In the wake of Trump’s Big, Ugly Bill, his latest spending proposal is the opening salvo of another battle. Congress is now working to enact this vision, using this Trump proposal as a framework for its annual spending legislation. Here’s what’s at stake and how we’ll fight back.
Trump Promises Dirtier, Privatized Water
Not long ago, the United States’ rivers were so choked with pollution, they caught fire. Federal laws, like the Clean Water Act, changed that. Now, vast swaths of the country can depend on their taps for clean water.
Trump would drag us closer to those dark days by slashing programs that prevent pollution. His cuts would be a boon to corporate polluters who would rather preserve their profits than clean up their act.
Trump’s proposal has made his policy intentions clear—dirty water for all.
At the same time, he’s going after funding for infrastructure improvements we need to make our water safe and affordable. Federal government funding is crucial for water infrastructure for states, Tribes, and municipalities. However, this funding has plummeted in recent decades, and Trump wants to cut them even more drastically.
Trump’s deep cuts to water funding also serves as a ploy to encourage water systems to sell off their water systems to private corporations. And we already know that private water systems lead to less local control of water, higher water bills, and worse customer service.
Specifically, his spending plan called for:
Slashing Research and Regulation of Toxic Pollution
His plan calls for a 54% cut from the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA is key for researching and regulating toxic chemicals that poison our water. Without a strong EPA, we can’t address threats to our water like PFAS “forever chemicals” and microplastics.
Virtually Eliminating Funding for Drinking Water
Trump’s plan calls for a nearly 90% cut to the Drinking Water and Clean Water State Revolving Funds, the main channels for federal dollars to states and localities for safe and clean water (that’s a cut of more than $2 billion).
Trump wants to completely eliminate these funds going forward, encouraging states to find “alternative funding sources” that could lead to private equity takeovers of local water supplies.
Dirtier Beaches and Dirtier Water
Trump’s plan calls for a complete elimination of many programs that provide clean water grants. That includes all EPA grants for beach protection, pollution control and prevention, clean and safe water technical assistance, and more.
Leaving Tribes and Rural Communities High and Dry
His plan would make huge cuts to water and wastewater grants specifically for Tribes and rural communities.
House Republicans lawmakers recently released their proposal for cuts to EPA and drinking safe and clean water programs, and while they aren’t as deep as Trump demanded, it would still be disastrous for our communities. And Trump’s proposal has made his policy intentions clear—dirty water for all.
Trump Takes Away Key Support for Farmers and Families
Trump’s spending plan also attacks programs that feed millions of families, support farmers and ranchers, and make our food more safe and sustainable. At the same time, Trump’s plan includes major giveaways to Big Ag. For one, he wants to completely eliminate funding for the EPA’s pesticides program and enforcement. The House Republican spending proposal would take a step in that direction by including Cancer Gag Act language to block EPA from improving rules for warning labels on pesticides.
Despite Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s rhetoric, his boss is working to make our food supply more dangerous for farmers, farm workers, and anyone who eats, helping pesticide companies to further profit from their toxic products.
Additionally, Trump would gut enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act. Without enforcement, meat corporations will get away with more dirty tactics in the market, putting livable incomes even further out of reach for farmers and ranchers.
Trump wants to:
Condemn People to Hunger
His spending plan slashes $748 million from the Agriculture Department’s (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service (on top of what the Big Ugly bill already slashed).
These cuts threaten the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which helps more than 40 million people put food on the table. The cuts may also impact WIC, the SNAP program targeted to Women, Infants, and Children, and school lunch programs.
Roll Back Sustainable Agriculture
Trump’s plan reduces funding for the Nation Resources Conservation Service by almost 90%, from $916 million to $112 million. This threatens programs that support urban agriculture, conservation, and educational opportunities for farmers.
Undermine Conservation and Disaster Recovery
His spending plan slashes Farm Service Agency funding by $372 million, cutting loans and assistance to farmers for conservation and disaster recovery.
Completely Eliminate Good Food Programs
His plan zeros out key programs like the Source Water Protection Program, Geographically Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers, and Farmers Market and Local Food Promotion that support farmers and a more resilient and sustainable food system.
Trump Wants Big Oil to Wreak Havoc on Our Planet
Our reliance on fossil fuels is making us sicker and poorer. From toxic pollution, to volatile energy prices, to the climate crisis, the harms are vast and growing. Trump’s budget would add fuel to the fire by clawing back funding for clean, renewable energy and ramping up support for Big Oil and Gas.
This will put more profits in the pockets of fossil fuel tycoons, while fossil-fueled climate change makes our power bills even more expensive. At the same time, Trump’s proposal would completely eliminate the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which helps about 6 million people keep the lights on.
As if that weren’t bad enough, Trump would kneecap federal programs that predict and respond to life-threatening climate disasters, even as those disasters grow in frequency and intensity. In the wake of horrific flash flooding in central Texas, these cuts will kill people.
Specifically, Trump’s spending plan:
Promotes Dirty Fossil Fuels
His spending plan allocates $2 billion to a new “Fossil Energy Programming” line item and increases spending for fossil fuel research and development.
Slashes Solar, Wind, and Energy Efficiency
His plan cuts funding by at least $6.2 billion. That includes the elimination of USDA funding ($500 million) for renewable energy and energy efficiency programs for farmers. Trump also calls for eliminating the Department of Interior’s onshore renewable energy and offshore wind programs.
Halts Vital Climate Change Research
The plan calls for the total elimination of the research arm of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, closing all its weather and climate labs and slashes NASA climate monitoring.
Attacks Disaster Recovery
Trump’s plan eliminates a third of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) budget. Trump released his new proposal just days before he announced plans to start “phasing out” FEMA entirely.
Already alarms are being rung that the elimination of critical services due to mass layoffs and cuts at the National Weather Services and FEMA have hampered emergency preparations and response to the devastating floods in Texas.
Join Us in Stopping Trump’s Vision from Becoming Reality
Trump’s spending vision shows his hand in stark numbers. It depicts a country where basic government functions—like keeping water safe and providing safety nets—are destroyed and corporate polluters can do what they please in the name of profits.
If Congress follows his direction, we face a sicker, hungrier, poorer nation. More family farms will have to shutter. More pollution will flood our waterways. Lives and our livable future is at stake.
Congress controls the purse strings, and right now Congress members are writing this spending bill. We need to remind them that they answer to us—not Trump.
But we know that with concerted, strategic efforts, we can overcome much of Trump’s agenda. Already, we’ve defeated several terrible provisions moving through Congress. With dedicated supporters like you, we’ve stopped Republican efforts to roll back a key water safety rule and successfully defended school lunch programs from direct cuts and public lands from privatization.
In the end, Congress controls the purse strings, and right now Congress members are writing this spending bill. We need to remind them that they answer to us—not Trump. That’s why, over the next couple months, Food & Water Watch will relentlessly fight these cuts. Since inauguration day, Food & Water Watch staff, members and supporters have rallied dozens of times, sent tens of thousands of calls and emails, met with lawmakers and staffers, and made our voices heard in social media and news outlets.
This is the kind of energy and action we need to push our leaders in Congress to do the right thing. They must stand up against Trump and stand up for us.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The International Finance Corporation’s Dubious Defense of Factory Farming
Instead of funding industrial agriculture the IFC should help small-scale farmers move to agroecology and regenerative farming which can boost yields, reduce the use of expensive inputs, and improve livelihoods.
Apr 30, 2025
The International Finance Corporation’s website brands many of the well-founded criticisms of industrial animal production as “myths.” This reflects the regrettably polarized debate between those who believe that industrial agriculture is needed to feed the growing world population and those who, like me, argue that a far-reaching transformation of our food system is needed.
The International Finance Corporation (IFC) website states that it is a myth that industrial animal production is bad for food security. The truth, however, is that factory farming diverts food away from people; it is dependent on feeding grain—corn, wheat, barley—to animals who convert these crops very inefficiently into meat and milk. For every 100 calories of human-edible cereals fed to animals, just 7-27 calories (depending on the species) enter the human food chain as meat. And for every 100 grams of protein in human-edible cereals fed to animals, only 13-37 grams of protein enter the human food chain as meat.
The scale of this is massive. International Grains Council data show that 45% of global grain production is used as animal feed, while 76% of world soy production is used to feed animals. The inefficiency of doing this is recognized by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), which states that it is “essential to fight food insecurity and malnutrition… Reducing the use of much of the world's grain production to feed animals and producing more food for direct human consumption can significantly contribute to this objective.” I calculate that if the use of cereals as animal feed were ended, an extra 2 billion people could be fed even allowing for the fact that if we reared fewer animals we would need to grow more crops for direct human consumption. My figure is very cautious; other studies calculate that ending the use of grains as animal feed would enable an extra 3.5-4 billion people to be fed. Moreover, industrial livestock’s huge demand for these cereals pushes up their price, potentially placing them out of reach of poor populations in the Global South. So, sorry IFC, but it really is not a myth to say that industrial animal production is bad for food security.
To dismiss the harsh suffering endured by industrially farmed animals as a myth is extraordinary
The IFC website dismisses as a myth the argument that industrial animal production is bad for the environment. However, factory farms disgorge large amounts of manure, slurry, and ammonia that pollute air and watercourses. When ammonia mixes with other gases it can form particulate matter; this is a key component of air pollution, which can lead to heart and pulmonary disease, respiratory problems including asthma, and lung cancer.
Industrial livestock’s huge demand for cereals as feed has been a key factor fuelling the intensification of crop production. This pivotal link between the livestock and arable sectors is often not recognized. With its monocultures and high use of chemical pesticides and nitrogen fertilizers, intensive crop production leads to soil degradation, biodiversity loss, and overuse and pollution of water. In short, it erodes the key fundamentals—soils, water, and biodiversity—on which our future ability to feed ourselves depends.
Arjem Hoekstra (2020) calculates that animals fed on cereals and soy (industrially farmed animals) use 43 times as much surface- and groundwater and are 61 times as polluting of water as animals fed on grass and other roughages. Its adherents claim that factory farming saves land by cramming animals into crowded sheds. But in reality it eats up huge amounts of cropland for feed. European Union studies show that feed production accounts for 99% of the land use of the pig and broiler sectors. It is feed production—not the tiny amount of space given to animals on the farm—that makes factory farming so land-hungry.
The contention that industrial systems undermine the socioeconomic potential of small-scale farmers in the developing world is also branded a myth by the IFC. The World Bank, however, takes a different view. Its 2024 report Recipe for a Liveable Planet states, “The global agrifood system disproportionately and detrimentally affects poor communities and smallholder farmers who cannot compete with industrial agriculture, thereby exacerbating rural poverty and increasing landlessness.” Instead of funding industrial agriculture the IFC should help small-scale farmers move to agroecology and regenerative farming which can boost yields, reduce the use of expensive inputs, and improve livelihoods.
Also swatted aside as a myth is the mountain of scientific evidence that industrial livestock production results in poor animal welfare. To dismiss the harsh suffering endured by industrially farmed animals as a myth is extraordinary. In its own Good Practice Note on animal welfare the IFC lists what are commonly recognized to be the key characteristics of factory farming—confinement in narrow stalls, overcrowding, barren environments, painful procedures, hunger, and breeding for high yields leading to health disorders—and identifies them as “welfare risks” that need to be tackled. But now, in a remarkable volte-face, the IFC airily dismisses these problems as a myth.
IFC’s position stands in sharp contrast to UNEP, which states that “intensive systems deprive animals of some of their most basic physical and psychological needs.” World Bank economist Berk Özler has written about the value of policies under which low-income countries can grow without causing massive increases in suffering among farmed animals. He writes, “Perhaps many low-income countries can leapfrog the stage of industrial animal farming, towards something more sensible.”
I urge the IFC to recognize that industrial animal agriculture is destructive—destructive of food security, the environment, small-scale farmer livelihoods, and the well-being of animals.
Keep ReadingShow Less
World Bank Leads Development Giants in Investing $2.27 Billion in Factory Farms
"We're calling on World Bank President Ajay Banja to phase out these investments, which are undermining his climate agenda," said one researcher.
Oct 21, 2024
The Green Climate Fund and 11 of the 15 multilateral development banks together invested at least $2.27 billion in factory farming in 2023, undercutting their stated climate goals, according to a report published Monday by the Stop Financing Factory Farming coalition.
The report, launched the same day as the start of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank's annual meetings in Washington, D.C., found that the World Bank was the worst offender. The bank—principally through its private-sector lending arm the International Finance Corporation (IFC)—put nearly $750 million toward industrial agricultural projects, five times more than any of the other banks.
"Factory farming is a leading driver of greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation, biodiversity loss, animal cruelty, and water pollution," Merel van der Mark, head of Animal Welfare and Finance at Sinergia Animal, said in a statement. "Development banks have all pledged to align their investments with the Paris climate agreement, yet are failing to make the kinds of investments needed to keep the goal to limit global temperature rises to 1.5°C within reach."
"There are examples of better practices out there."
The report was based on 2023 disclosure information scraped from project webpages by the Early Warning System. It found that the Green Climate Fund and 11 of the 15 multilateral development banks had invested a total of $3.3 billion in animal agriculture generally, funding 62 projects. The banks also mobilized another $3.4 billion for the sector from other sources including banks and governments. The World Bank Group also led the pack in animal agriculture financing overall at over $1.5 billion.
Factory farming—or industrial agriculture—received most of that money, representing 68.3% of investments and 76.7% of supported projects. Only 2.3% of investments and 6.7% of projects involved non-industrial farming that might potentially be sustainable.
The report's authors said their research "reveals a concerning trend toward support for the industrialization of animal agriculture." This can occur through more monocropping of plants like soy or corn for animal feed; more warehousing of large numbers of animals in concentrated feed operations that release large amounts of climate-, land-, and water-polluting waste; and the construction of slaughterhouses.
The World Bank's investments in factory farming go against its own research. The bank released a report in May finding that the agrifood system generates a third of total greenhouse gas emissions, and that animal production and consumption make up almost 60% of those emissions. It even stopped serving meat in its staff cafe.
"The World Bank has set out an ambitious road map to drastically cut agricultural emissions while feeding the world. However, this good work is being undermined by its private sector arm, the International Finance Corporation," said International Accountability Project researcher Alessandro Ramazzotti. "Last year IFC invested $501 million in factory farming including a $47 million loan to a Chinese company for a multi-story pig farm, making it the largest investor of all the development banks. We're calling on World Bank President Ajay Banja to phase out these investments, which are undermining his climate agenda."
In addition, the groups behind the Stop Financing Factory Farming coalition—which is headed by Bank Information Center, Friends of the Earth U.S., Global Forest Coalition, International Accountability Project, Sinergia Animal, and World Animal Protection—call on all development banks to move their money from industrial agriculture to regenerative agriculture that boosts biodiversity, helps the environment, and strengthens local communities, following the model of the five banks in the report that did not invest in factory farms in 2023.
"There are examples of better practices out there," said Ladd Connell, environment director at Bank Information Center. "The Green Climate Fund supports some low-carbon projects, such as providing financial and technical support to smallholder women farmers in Cote D'Ivoire to help them adapt to climate change. Where banks invest in new livestock projects, they should be innovative and sustainable, following agroecological principles."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular