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.
A farmer harvests fresh corn cobs from the field into his truck for Prairie Crossing, a community sponsored organic farm in Grayslake, Illinois, USA. (Photo: (c) Ralf-Finn Hestoft/CORBIS/Corbis via Getty Images)
While U.S. agribusiness groups are trying to pressure Mexico into abandoning their announced bans on glyphosate herbicide and imports of genetically modified corn by 2024, U.S. suppliers of non-GMO seed and grain see an opportunity to supply Mexico with non-GMO corn.
"Could we supply Mexico? Absolutely," says Bill Niebur, president of High Fidelity Genetics, an Iowa-based non-GMO corn seed company. "In terms of acres, it's not a problem. Instead of criticizing Mexico, let's provide it to them."
Ken Dallmier, CEO of Clarkson Grain, an Illinois-based supplier of organic and non-GMO grains, agrees. "Given time and focus, I think it's completely feasible," he says. "Mexico is a key trading partner, and all the logistics of Mexican grain import come through the U.S. It's matter of planning and market."
"An unbelievable proposal?"
There have been statements of impending doom in the U.S. agriculture sector since the government of Mexico's President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador issued a decree last December calling for the replacement of controversial glyphosate herbicide and imports of GMO corn in the country by January 31, 2024.
The U.S. reaction may have been best expressed by Rich Nelson, chief strategist with Allendale Inc. "I almost refuse to even look at it because I think it's an unbelievable proposal. I just don't know what to say. I don't," he said in an interview with Western Producer.
At stake are 16.5 million metric tons of corn exports--virtually all GMO--to Mexico each year, which are worth $3 billion. Mexico is the U.S.'s second largest corn buyer after China.
A series of emails obtained using the Freedom of Information Act by the Center for Biological Diversity describe how pesticide industry lobby group, CropLife America, and pesticide and GMO seed producer, Bayer, are working with the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) to pressure Mexico into abandoning the bans on glyphosate and GMO corn. The USTR warned Mexico's Economy Secretary, Graciela Marquez Colin, that Mexico's actions threatened the "strength of our bilateral relationship."
According to Vice Minister of Agriculture Victor Suarez, Mexico wants to phase out glyphosate and GMO corn imports because the Mexican government is "committed to a fair, healthy, sustainable, and competitive agri-food system" and to "intensively promote agroecological and sustainable practices and reduce the use of agrochemicals."
Suarez says the main reasons for Mexico's bans are growing concerns about the safety of glyphosate and GMO contamination threats to Mexico's staple and sacred crop--corn.
He cites a growing number of published studies showing negative impacts of glyphosate. "There is rigorous scientific evidence about the toxicity of this herbicide, which demonstrates the impacts on human health and the environment," he says.
Suarez says imported GMO corn poses several risks. "The risk is that imported (GMO) maize will be used as seed and can therefore contaminate the corn of neighboring farms. There is also a risk--and it is something that actually happens--that the imported transgenic yellow maize is used within the commercial and industrial businesses that should work with white (non-GMO) maize for human consumption."
He also cites a study showing that 90.4% of corn tortillas consumed in Mexico contain GMO corn sequences, as did 82% of corn flours, cereals and snacks. He calls the presence of GMO genes in these staple Mexican foods "unacceptable."
"Expectation is to induce imports of non-GMO yellow maize"
Suarez says that Mexico plans to increase production of domestic non-GMO corn to make up for the lost U.S imports with the aim to achieve "food self-sufficiency." The country now produces about 27 million tons of corn each year, most of which are white corn and about 3 million tons of yellow corn. White corn is used to make tortillas and other staple foods, while yellow corn is used primarily for animal feed.
Mexico would need to increase its corn production by about 30% to replace the lost imports.
Suarez says Mexico will rely on its farmers to increase production of non-GMO corn. "These efforts are particularly geared towards small- and medium-scale producers who show significant growth potential in their yields per hectare," he says.
Those farmers account for 90% of all the farmers in Mexico.
But Suarez also says Mexico would be interested in importing non-GMO corn from the U.S. "Imports of yellow maize will prevail for now, and the expectation is to induce imports of non-GMO yellow maize," he says.
U.S. non-GMO corn producers can supply Mexico with non-GMO yellow corn, according to Greg Lickteig, a long-time grain industry veteran and consultant with Omaha Grain. "No question, the U.S. could meet Mexico's demand should they seek only non-GMO corn," he says
Mexico's need for 16.5 MMT or 650 million bushels of corn is less than 5% of the U.S.'s annual corn production, according to Lickteig.
Chris Wiegert, chief supply chain officer at Healthy Food Ingredients, a supplier of identity preserved, organic, and non-GMO specialty ingredients, says meeting Mexico's need for non-GMO corn is "not that big of an issue. We're growing large amounts of non-GMO corn already," he says. In 2020, U.S. farmers planted 7.49 million acres of non-GMO corn.
Dallmier is confident the U.S. can supply Mexico with both yellow and white non-GMO corn. To meet Mexico's demand for non-GMO white corn, the U.S. would have to increase white corn production by 23% from its current one million acres to 1.23 million acres, which is not a big task, according to Dallmier. "Given proper market incentives, the U.S. could easily supply the increased Mexico demand for non-GMO corn," Dallmier says.
Proper market incentives include premiums for farmers to grow non-GMO corn, which requires more management than GMO corn.
"Farmers need competitive seed varieties, stable logistics such as rail, truck, container, and water transportation, risk management tools, and revenue premiums to incentivize them to participate in a different marketplace," Dallmier says.
Farmers may need to be paid a premium to grow non-GMO corn, particularly now that commodity corn prices are now higher.
Iowa farmer George Naylor, who has grown non-GMO corn for many years, says the costs for growing non-GMO corn are comparable to that of GMO. "I'm pretty sure that anybody can raise non-GMO corn for about the same cost of production as GMO. GMO seed corn is going to cost more per acre," he says.
According to estimates by Spectrum Non-GMO seed company, the cost for non-GMO corn seed is about one-half as much as GMO corn seed.
"Excellent non-GMO seed genetics exist"
According to Dallmier, the key to supplying Mexico's non-GMO demand is producing enough non-GMO corn seed. "The primary need will be to work with the seed suppliers, such as Pioneer/Corteva and others to meet this new demand with supply of commercial non-GMO seed," he says.
A large seed company will be required for a project of this scope, according to Wiegert. "You switch a supply chain like this, you have to get a big seed company behind you," he says.
Yields of non-GMO corn seeds are competitive to those of GMO seed, according to field trials conducted by several non-GMO seed companies.
"We are testing non-GMO and GMO hybrids, and our non-GMO products are doing really well.," says Niebur, who is former global vice president of research and development at Pioneer Hi-Bred.
Lickteig is also confident that non-GMO seed companies can deliver. "Excellent non-GMO seed genetics exist, and the seed industry is very capable of creating top-yielding hybrids," he says.
To meet Mexico's 2024 deadline, non-GMO seed production would have to start this year. Dallmier says three years may appear to be a long period of time to ramp up seed production but it's not.
"The seed for 2023 (non-GMO corn crop) will need to be grown in 2022, and this year is when seed companies will need to make parent seed (the seed corn that makes the seed corn) or they will be out of position," he says.
Obstacle vs. opportunity
A big question remains about whether Mexico's GMO corn import ban also applies to corn for animal feed. U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has been quoted as saying that the ban only applies to corn for food and not feed. But Suarez says Mexico wants to "induce" imports of non-GMO yellow corn, which is used primarily for feed. He also says the interpretation of the decree regarding GMO feed is up to several Mexican government ministries. "The decree refers to the use of genetically modified corn grain in the diet of Mexican women and men, it is not expressly stated that it is directly," he says.
Regardless of whether Mexico needs non-GMO corn for food or food and feed, U.S. suppliers say they can meet the demand.
Niebur says the U.S. should view Mexico's bans on glyphosate and GMO corn not as an obstacle but an opportunity to enhance its trade relationship with Mexico.
"We need to let them know we're very serious and respectful about their needs and challenges and to better understand what they trying to accomplish and work together to see how we can do that," he says.
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
While U.S. agribusiness groups are trying to pressure Mexico into abandoning their announced bans on glyphosate herbicide and imports of genetically modified corn by 2024, U.S. suppliers of non-GMO seed and grain see an opportunity to supply Mexico with non-GMO corn.
"Could we supply Mexico? Absolutely," says Bill Niebur, president of High Fidelity Genetics, an Iowa-based non-GMO corn seed company. "In terms of acres, it's not a problem. Instead of criticizing Mexico, let's provide it to them."
Ken Dallmier, CEO of Clarkson Grain, an Illinois-based supplier of organic and non-GMO grains, agrees. "Given time and focus, I think it's completely feasible," he says. "Mexico is a key trading partner, and all the logistics of Mexican grain import come through the U.S. It's matter of planning and market."
"An unbelievable proposal?"
There have been statements of impending doom in the U.S. agriculture sector since the government of Mexico's President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador issued a decree last December calling for the replacement of controversial glyphosate herbicide and imports of GMO corn in the country by January 31, 2024.
The U.S. reaction may have been best expressed by Rich Nelson, chief strategist with Allendale Inc. "I almost refuse to even look at it because I think it's an unbelievable proposal. I just don't know what to say. I don't," he said in an interview with Western Producer.
At stake are 16.5 million metric tons of corn exports--virtually all GMO--to Mexico each year, which are worth $3 billion. Mexico is the U.S.'s second largest corn buyer after China.
A series of emails obtained using the Freedom of Information Act by the Center for Biological Diversity describe how pesticide industry lobby group, CropLife America, and pesticide and GMO seed producer, Bayer, are working with the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) to pressure Mexico into abandoning the bans on glyphosate and GMO corn. The USTR warned Mexico's Economy Secretary, Graciela Marquez Colin, that Mexico's actions threatened the "strength of our bilateral relationship."
According to Vice Minister of Agriculture Victor Suarez, Mexico wants to phase out glyphosate and GMO corn imports because the Mexican government is "committed to a fair, healthy, sustainable, and competitive agri-food system" and to "intensively promote agroecological and sustainable practices and reduce the use of agrochemicals."
Suarez says the main reasons for Mexico's bans are growing concerns about the safety of glyphosate and GMO contamination threats to Mexico's staple and sacred crop--corn.
He cites a growing number of published studies showing negative impacts of glyphosate. "There is rigorous scientific evidence about the toxicity of this herbicide, which demonstrates the impacts on human health and the environment," he says.
Suarez says imported GMO corn poses several risks. "The risk is that imported (GMO) maize will be used as seed and can therefore contaminate the corn of neighboring farms. There is also a risk--and it is something that actually happens--that the imported transgenic yellow maize is used within the commercial and industrial businesses that should work with white (non-GMO) maize for human consumption."
He also cites a study showing that 90.4% of corn tortillas consumed in Mexico contain GMO corn sequences, as did 82% of corn flours, cereals and snacks. He calls the presence of GMO genes in these staple Mexican foods "unacceptable."
"Expectation is to induce imports of non-GMO yellow maize"
Suarez says that Mexico plans to increase production of domestic non-GMO corn to make up for the lost U.S imports with the aim to achieve "food self-sufficiency." The country now produces about 27 million tons of corn each year, most of which are white corn and about 3 million tons of yellow corn. White corn is used to make tortillas and other staple foods, while yellow corn is used primarily for animal feed.
Mexico would need to increase its corn production by about 30% to replace the lost imports.
Suarez says Mexico will rely on its farmers to increase production of non-GMO corn. "These efforts are particularly geared towards small- and medium-scale producers who show significant growth potential in their yields per hectare," he says.
Those farmers account for 90% of all the farmers in Mexico.
But Suarez also says Mexico would be interested in importing non-GMO corn from the U.S. "Imports of yellow maize will prevail for now, and the expectation is to induce imports of non-GMO yellow maize," he says.
U.S. non-GMO corn producers can supply Mexico with non-GMO yellow corn, according to Greg Lickteig, a long-time grain industry veteran and consultant with Omaha Grain. "No question, the U.S. could meet Mexico's demand should they seek only non-GMO corn," he says
Mexico's need for 16.5 MMT or 650 million bushels of corn is less than 5% of the U.S.'s annual corn production, according to Lickteig.
Chris Wiegert, chief supply chain officer at Healthy Food Ingredients, a supplier of identity preserved, organic, and non-GMO specialty ingredients, says meeting Mexico's need for non-GMO corn is "not that big of an issue. We're growing large amounts of non-GMO corn already," he says. In 2020, U.S. farmers planted 7.49 million acres of non-GMO corn.
Dallmier is confident the U.S. can supply Mexico with both yellow and white non-GMO corn. To meet Mexico's demand for non-GMO white corn, the U.S. would have to increase white corn production by 23% from its current one million acres to 1.23 million acres, which is not a big task, according to Dallmier. "Given proper market incentives, the U.S. could easily supply the increased Mexico demand for non-GMO corn," Dallmier says.
Proper market incentives include premiums for farmers to grow non-GMO corn, which requires more management than GMO corn.
"Farmers need competitive seed varieties, stable logistics such as rail, truck, container, and water transportation, risk management tools, and revenue premiums to incentivize them to participate in a different marketplace," Dallmier says.
Farmers may need to be paid a premium to grow non-GMO corn, particularly now that commodity corn prices are now higher.
Iowa farmer George Naylor, who has grown non-GMO corn for many years, says the costs for growing non-GMO corn are comparable to that of GMO. "I'm pretty sure that anybody can raise non-GMO corn for about the same cost of production as GMO. GMO seed corn is going to cost more per acre," he says.
According to estimates by Spectrum Non-GMO seed company, the cost for non-GMO corn seed is about one-half as much as GMO corn seed.
"Excellent non-GMO seed genetics exist"
According to Dallmier, the key to supplying Mexico's non-GMO demand is producing enough non-GMO corn seed. "The primary need will be to work with the seed suppliers, such as Pioneer/Corteva and others to meet this new demand with supply of commercial non-GMO seed," he says.
A large seed company will be required for a project of this scope, according to Wiegert. "You switch a supply chain like this, you have to get a big seed company behind you," he says.
Yields of non-GMO corn seeds are competitive to those of GMO seed, according to field trials conducted by several non-GMO seed companies.
"We are testing non-GMO and GMO hybrids, and our non-GMO products are doing really well.," says Niebur, who is former global vice president of research and development at Pioneer Hi-Bred.
Lickteig is also confident that non-GMO seed companies can deliver. "Excellent non-GMO seed genetics exist, and the seed industry is very capable of creating top-yielding hybrids," he says.
To meet Mexico's 2024 deadline, non-GMO seed production would have to start this year. Dallmier says three years may appear to be a long period of time to ramp up seed production but it's not.
"The seed for 2023 (non-GMO corn crop) will need to be grown in 2022, and this year is when seed companies will need to make parent seed (the seed corn that makes the seed corn) or they will be out of position," he says.
Obstacle vs. opportunity
A big question remains about whether Mexico's GMO corn import ban also applies to corn for animal feed. U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has been quoted as saying that the ban only applies to corn for food and not feed. But Suarez says Mexico wants to "induce" imports of non-GMO yellow corn, which is used primarily for feed. He also says the interpretation of the decree regarding GMO feed is up to several Mexican government ministries. "The decree refers to the use of genetically modified corn grain in the diet of Mexican women and men, it is not expressly stated that it is directly," he says.
Regardless of whether Mexico needs non-GMO corn for food or food and feed, U.S. suppliers say they can meet the demand.
Niebur says the U.S. should view Mexico's bans on glyphosate and GMO corn not as an obstacle but an opportunity to enhance its trade relationship with Mexico.
"We need to let them know we're very serious and respectful about their needs and challenges and to better understand what they trying to accomplish and work together to see how we can do that," he says.
While U.S. agribusiness groups are trying to pressure Mexico into abandoning their announced bans on glyphosate herbicide and imports of genetically modified corn by 2024, U.S. suppliers of non-GMO seed and grain see an opportunity to supply Mexico with non-GMO corn.
"Could we supply Mexico? Absolutely," says Bill Niebur, president of High Fidelity Genetics, an Iowa-based non-GMO corn seed company. "In terms of acres, it's not a problem. Instead of criticizing Mexico, let's provide it to them."
Ken Dallmier, CEO of Clarkson Grain, an Illinois-based supplier of organic and non-GMO grains, agrees. "Given time and focus, I think it's completely feasible," he says. "Mexico is a key trading partner, and all the logistics of Mexican grain import come through the U.S. It's matter of planning and market."
"An unbelievable proposal?"
There have been statements of impending doom in the U.S. agriculture sector since the government of Mexico's President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador issued a decree last December calling for the replacement of controversial glyphosate herbicide and imports of GMO corn in the country by January 31, 2024.
The U.S. reaction may have been best expressed by Rich Nelson, chief strategist with Allendale Inc. "I almost refuse to even look at it because I think it's an unbelievable proposal. I just don't know what to say. I don't," he said in an interview with Western Producer.
At stake are 16.5 million metric tons of corn exports--virtually all GMO--to Mexico each year, which are worth $3 billion. Mexico is the U.S.'s second largest corn buyer after China.
A series of emails obtained using the Freedom of Information Act by the Center for Biological Diversity describe how pesticide industry lobby group, CropLife America, and pesticide and GMO seed producer, Bayer, are working with the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) to pressure Mexico into abandoning the bans on glyphosate and GMO corn. The USTR warned Mexico's Economy Secretary, Graciela Marquez Colin, that Mexico's actions threatened the "strength of our bilateral relationship."
According to Vice Minister of Agriculture Victor Suarez, Mexico wants to phase out glyphosate and GMO corn imports because the Mexican government is "committed to a fair, healthy, sustainable, and competitive agri-food system" and to "intensively promote agroecological and sustainable practices and reduce the use of agrochemicals."
Suarez says the main reasons for Mexico's bans are growing concerns about the safety of glyphosate and GMO contamination threats to Mexico's staple and sacred crop--corn.
He cites a growing number of published studies showing negative impacts of glyphosate. "There is rigorous scientific evidence about the toxicity of this herbicide, which demonstrates the impacts on human health and the environment," he says.
Suarez says imported GMO corn poses several risks. "The risk is that imported (GMO) maize will be used as seed and can therefore contaminate the corn of neighboring farms. There is also a risk--and it is something that actually happens--that the imported transgenic yellow maize is used within the commercial and industrial businesses that should work with white (non-GMO) maize for human consumption."
He also cites a study showing that 90.4% of corn tortillas consumed in Mexico contain GMO corn sequences, as did 82% of corn flours, cereals and snacks. He calls the presence of GMO genes in these staple Mexican foods "unacceptable."
"Expectation is to induce imports of non-GMO yellow maize"
Suarez says that Mexico plans to increase production of domestic non-GMO corn to make up for the lost U.S imports with the aim to achieve "food self-sufficiency." The country now produces about 27 million tons of corn each year, most of which are white corn and about 3 million tons of yellow corn. White corn is used to make tortillas and other staple foods, while yellow corn is used primarily for animal feed.
Mexico would need to increase its corn production by about 30% to replace the lost imports.
Suarez says Mexico will rely on its farmers to increase production of non-GMO corn. "These efforts are particularly geared towards small- and medium-scale producers who show significant growth potential in their yields per hectare," he says.
Those farmers account for 90% of all the farmers in Mexico.
But Suarez also says Mexico would be interested in importing non-GMO corn from the U.S. "Imports of yellow maize will prevail for now, and the expectation is to induce imports of non-GMO yellow maize," he says.
U.S. non-GMO corn producers can supply Mexico with non-GMO yellow corn, according to Greg Lickteig, a long-time grain industry veteran and consultant with Omaha Grain. "No question, the U.S. could meet Mexico's demand should they seek only non-GMO corn," he says
Mexico's need for 16.5 MMT or 650 million bushels of corn is less than 5% of the U.S.'s annual corn production, according to Lickteig.
Chris Wiegert, chief supply chain officer at Healthy Food Ingredients, a supplier of identity preserved, organic, and non-GMO specialty ingredients, says meeting Mexico's need for non-GMO corn is "not that big of an issue. We're growing large amounts of non-GMO corn already," he says. In 2020, U.S. farmers planted 7.49 million acres of non-GMO corn.
Dallmier is confident the U.S. can supply Mexico with both yellow and white non-GMO corn. To meet Mexico's demand for non-GMO white corn, the U.S. would have to increase white corn production by 23% from its current one million acres to 1.23 million acres, which is not a big task, according to Dallmier. "Given proper market incentives, the U.S. could easily supply the increased Mexico demand for non-GMO corn," Dallmier says.
Proper market incentives include premiums for farmers to grow non-GMO corn, which requires more management than GMO corn.
"Farmers need competitive seed varieties, stable logistics such as rail, truck, container, and water transportation, risk management tools, and revenue premiums to incentivize them to participate in a different marketplace," Dallmier says.
Farmers may need to be paid a premium to grow non-GMO corn, particularly now that commodity corn prices are now higher.
Iowa farmer George Naylor, who has grown non-GMO corn for many years, says the costs for growing non-GMO corn are comparable to that of GMO. "I'm pretty sure that anybody can raise non-GMO corn for about the same cost of production as GMO. GMO seed corn is going to cost more per acre," he says.
According to estimates by Spectrum Non-GMO seed company, the cost for non-GMO corn seed is about one-half as much as GMO corn seed.
"Excellent non-GMO seed genetics exist"
According to Dallmier, the key to supplying Mexico's non-GMO demand is producing enough non-GMO corn seed. "The primary need will be to work with the seed suppliers, such as Pioneer/Corteva and others to meet this new demand with supply of commercial non-GMO seed," he says.
A large seed company will be required for a project of this scope, according to Wiegert. "You switch a supply chain like this, you have to get a big seed company behind you," he says.
Yields of non-GMO corn seeds are competitive to those of GMO seed, according to field trials conducted by several non-GMO seed companies.
"We are testing non-GMO and GMO hybrids, and our non-GMO products are doing really well.," says Niebur, who is former global vice president of research and development at Pioneer Hi-Bred.
Lickteig is also confident that non-GMO seed companies can deliver. "Excellent non-GMO seed genetics exist, and the seed industry is very capable of creating top-yielding hybrids," he says.
To meet Mexico's 2024 deadline, non-GMO seed production would have to start this year. Dallmier says three years may appear to be a long period of time to ramp up seed production but it's not.
"The seed for 2023 (non-GMO corn crop) will need to be grown in 2022, and this year is when seed companies will need to make parent seed (the seed corn that makes the seed corn) or they will be out of position," he says.
Obstacle vs. opportunity
A big question remains about whether Mexico's GMO corn import ban also applies to corn for animal feed. U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has been quoted as saying that the ban only applies to corn for food and not feed. But Suarez says Mexico wants to "induce" imports of non-GMO yellow corn, which is used primarily for feed. He also says the interpretation of the decree regarding GMO feed is up to several Mexican government ministries. "The decree refers to the use of genetically modified corn grain in the diet of Mexican women and men, it is not expressly stated that it is directly," he says.
Regardless of whether Mexico needs non-GMO corn for food or food and feed, U.S. suppliers say they can meet the demand.
Niebur says the U.S. should view Mexico's bans on glyphosate and GMO corn not as an obstacle but an opportunity to enhance its trade relationship with Mexico.
"We need to let them know we're very serious and respectful about their needs and challenges and to better understand what they trying to accomplish and work together to see how we can do that," he says.
"On the 90th anniversary of Social Security, our job must be to reverse these disastrous cuts, expand Social Security, and make it easier, not harder, for Americans to receive the benefits they have earned and deserve."
U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders on Wednesday introduced the Keep Billionaires Out of Social Security Act, legislation intended to thwart President Donald Trump's attacks on the agency that administers benefits for millions of seniors and other Americans.
In a statement introducing his bill, Sanders (I-Vt.) called out not only Trump but also Elon Musk, who is the richest person on Earth and led the president's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) until he left the administration in May.
"Since Trump has been in office, he has been working overtime with the wealthiest man in the world, Elon Musk, to dismantle Social Security and undermine the faith that the American people have in this vitally important program," Sanders said. "Thousands of Social Security staff have lost their jobs, seniors and people with disabilities are having a much harder time receiving the benefits they have earned, field offices have been shut down, and the 1-800 number is a mess."
"That is beyond unacceptable," the senator declared, just days before a key milestone for the law that led to the Social Security Administration (SSA). "On the 90th anniversary of Social Security, our job must be to reverse these disastrous cuts, expand Social Security, and make it easier, not harder, for Americans to receive the benefits they have earned and deserve. That's precisely what this legislation will do."
As Sanders' office summarized, the bill aims to defend Americans and their benefits by:
The bill is backed by 20 other members of the Senate Democratic Caucus, including Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), and several organizations, including Social Security Works, Alliance for Retired Americans, National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees.
Sanders introduced the bill on the same day that he joined former Social Security Commissioner Martin O'Malley, U.S. Reps. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) and John Larson (D-Conn.), and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.)—a co-sponsor of the new legislation—for a Protect Our Checks town hall, hosted by Unrig Our Economy, Social Security Works, and the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
Late last month, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent "openly bragged about plans to use a back door to privatize Social Security and hand the benefits of working families over to those folks on Wall Street," Wyden pointed out. "Trump's so-called promise to protect Social Security, in my view, is about as real as his promise to protect Medicaid—no substance, big consequences for American seniors and families walking on an economic tightrope."
The so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act that Republicans passed and the president signed in July is expected to strip Medicaid and other key assistance, including food stamps, from millions of Americans in the next decade.
Wednesday's town hall also featured testimony from Social Security recipients, including Judith Brown, who explained that "at 37, I became disabled. It was devastating, because I was a young mother to two sons [that] are on the autism spectrum."
"When my sons needed additional medical support, I was able to get care for them because of their Social Security benefits. Without those benefits, we would have been homeless on the street," Brown continued. "Social Security has always been there for us over all these years. Right now, this administration is bent on stripping us of our benefits that we paid into during our working years... We cannot allow this to happen. Social Security must be protected and expanded. Our entire existence is on the line, and we must fight to protect Social Security."
Unrig Our Economy spokesperson Saryn Francis said that "Republican tariffs are driving up prices at the grocery store, their bills are raising the cost of healthcare and electricity, and they've even found time to hand out more tax breaks to billionaires, and now they want to mess with Social Security, and we are not going to let them take that away from us."
Francis noted that "this weekend, with over 50 events across the country, Americans are rallying in a massive effort to support Social Security and calling on congressional Republicans to stop threatening what hardworking people have earned and need to survive."
"Children dying first in a famine Israel caused by restricting food aid also had comorbidities and preexisting conditions," said one jourtnalist. "Of course they did. That is who dies first, as any child can tell you."
Using terminology that's all too familiar to the U.S. public—and treated by the for-profit health system as synonymous with those who are entitled to less care—the Israel Defense Forces on Tuesday released an "in-depth review" of widespread reports that Israel has killed hundreds of people in Gaza so far through its deliberate starvation policy.
The military claimed the analysis found that many Palestinians who have died of malnutrition so far had previous illnesses.
"Most 'malnutrition' deaths were due to severe preexisting conditions," said the IDF in a post on social media. "The expert review concluded that there are no signs of a widespread malnutrition phenomenon among the population in Gaza."
The fact that a number of people who have died had health conditions before Israel began bombarding Gaza in October 2023—decimating its healthcare system, among other civilian infrastructure—is hardly a surprise, said journalist Ryan Grim of Drop Site News.
"Children dying first in a famine Israel caused by restricting food aid also had comorbidities and preexisting conditions," said Grim. "Of course they did. That is who dies first, as any child can tell you."
The IDF and its top military funder, the U.S. government, have persistently denied that Israel is intentionally starving Palestinian civilians with its near-total blockade on humanitarian aid.
"It took an 'in-depth IDF review' abto determine that children with preexisting conditions will be the first victims of a man-made famine?"
As the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) has warned that famine is now unfolding in Gaza, experts have called the starvation crisis that's killed at least 235 people "entirely man-made," and Amnesty International has gathered extensive testimony from healthcare workers and civilians describing how Israel is using starvation as a "weapon of war," the Trump administration has continued to claim that any malnutrition in Gaza is the result of Hamas "stealing aid."
Last month, even IDF officials were forced to admit previous claims that Hamas was stealing humanitarian aid deliveries could not be verified.
With that claim debunked, the "in-depth review" focused instead on dismissing the starvation victims themselves.
The IDF presented the case of 4-year-old Abdullah Hanu Muhammad Abu Zarqa, who had a genetic disease that caused "deficiencies, osteoporosis, and bone thinning."
It also posted on the social media platform X the medical records of a 2-year-old named Abed Allah Hany Muhamad Abu Zarka, which showed the toddler had hair loss and rickets—a bone disease caused by vitamin D deficiency. The document showed he had a "positive family history of similar cases" and was shared in the apparent hope that disclosing the information would tamp down outrage over Israel's blockade on humanitarian aid.
"I can't understand how anyone thinks 'We're only starving the SICK kids to death' is any kind of justification, even if it were true?!" said New York Times columnist Megan K. Stack.
The in-depth review, which Israel said verified "only a few cases" of starvation, came weeks after the Times appeared to bow to pressure from the Israeli government and media after it reported on Mohammed Zakaria al-Mutawaq, an 18-month-old who was born with cerebral palsy and had also been suffering from starvation. Israel claimed the use of photos of the toddler in media coverage was misleading because outlets like the Times didn't disclose al-Mutawaq's previous medical condition, and the Times issued an editorial note pointing out his diagnosis soon after.
The editors' move provoked outcry from progressive observers, who called the addendum "ghoulish" and "depraved."
One noted that an institution that took pains to "clarify" that "some portion of Nazi death camp victims had preexisting conditions" would rightly be accused of denying the impact of the Holocaust.
"It took an 'in-depth IDF review,'" one critic asked Wednesday, "to determine that children with preexisting conditions will be the first victims of a man-made famine?"
"If implemented, the plans would amount to transferring people from one war-ravaged land at risk of famine to another," the Associated Press said.
Israel has reportedly discussed pushing the Palestinian population of Gaza to another war zone in South Sudan.
The Associated Press reported Tuesday that Israeli leaders had been engaged in talks with the African nation and that an Israeli delegation would soon visit the country to look into the possibility of setting up "makeshift camps" for Palestinians to be herded into.
"It's unclear how far the talks have advanced, but if implemented, the plans would amount to transferring people from one war-ravaged land at risk of famine to another," the AP said.
Like Gaza, South Sudan is in the midst of a massive humanitarian crisis caused by an ongoing violence and instability. In June, Human Rights Watch reported that more than half of South Sudan's population, 7.7 million people, faced acute food insecurity. The nation is also home to one of the world's largest refugee crises, with more than 2 million people internally displaced.
On Wednesday, the South Sudanese foreign ministry said it "firmly refutes" the reports that it discussed the transfer of Palestinians with Israel, adding that they are "baseless and do not reflect the official position or policy."
However, six sources that spoke to the AP—including the founder of a U.S.-based lobbying firm and the leader of a South Sudanese civil society group, as well as four who maintained anonymity—said the government briefed them on the talks.
Sharren Haskel, Israel's deputy foreign minister, also arrived in South Sudan on Tuesday to hold a series of talks with the president and other government officials.
While the content of these talks is unclear for the moment, the Israeli government is quite open about its goal of seeking the permanent transfer of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip to other countries.
In addition to South Sudan, it has been reported that Israeli officials have also approached Sudan, Somalia, and the breakaway state of Somaliland, all of which have suffered from chronic war, poverty, and instability.
On Tuesday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in an interview with the Israeli TV station i24 that "the right thing to do, even according to the laws of war as I know them, is to allow the population to leave, and then you go in with all your might against the enemy who remains there."
Though Netanyahu has described this as "voluntary migration," Israeli officials have in the past indicated that their goal is to make conditions in Gaza so intolerable that its people see no choice but to leave.
Finance minister and war cabinet member Bezalel Smotrich, who has openly discussed the objective of forcing 2 million Palestinians out to make way for Israeli settlers, said in May: "Within a few months, we will be able to declare that we have won. Gaza will be totally destroyed."
Speaking of its people, he said: "They will be totally despairing, understanding that there is no hope and nothing to look for in Gaza, and will be looking for relocation to begin a new life in other places."
Contrary to Netanyahu's assertion, international bodies, governments, and human rights groups have denounced the so-called "voluntary migration" plan as a policy of forcible transfer that is illegal under international law.
"To impose inhumane conditions of life to push Palestinians out of Gaza would amount to the war crime of unlawful transfer or deportation," said Amnesty International in May.
Israeli human rights organizations, led by the group Gisha, explained in June in a letter to Israel's Defense Minister, Israel Katz, that there is no such thing as "voluntary migration" under the circumstances that the Israeli war campaign has imposed.
"Genuine 'consent' under these conditions simply does not exist," the groups said. "Therefore, the decision in question constitutes explicit planning for mass transfer of civilians and ethnic cleansing, while violating international law, amounting to war crimes and crimes against humanity."
The plan to permanently remove Palestinians from the Gaza Strip has received the backing of U.S. President Donald Trump, who has said he wants to turn the strip into the "Riviera of the Middle East."
The U.S. State Department currently advises travelers not to visit Sudan or Somaliland due to the risk of armed conflict, civil unrest, crime, terrorism, and kidnapping. However, the United States has reportedly been involved in talks pushing these countries to take in the Palestinians forced out by Israel.
After Israel announced its plans to fully "conquer" Gaza, U.N. official Miroslav Jenča said during an emergency Security Council session on Sunday that the occupation push is "yet another dangerous escalation of the conflict."
"If these plans are implemented," he said, "they will likely trigger another calamity in Gaza, reverberating across the region and causing further forced displacement, killings, and destruction—compounding the unbearable suffering of the population."