In its war against small farmers, Congress says the quiet part out loud
The plan cuts nearly $300 billion in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP benefits to support (in the amount of about $60 billion) industrial agriculture operations.
This is on top of the existing $180 billion projected in future subsidies for programs like Agricultural Risk Coverage, Price Loss Coverage and crop insurance. That goes without mentioning the $10 billion recently allocated to big agriculture through the Emergency Commodity Assistance Program, which an American Enterprise Institute report called 'probably not justified.' That's a lot of bacon going disproportionately to America's largest producers.
At the same time, congressional agriculture committees are promising to override state and local regulations that protect small farmers, as well as set basic humane agriculture standards.
Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) has introduced the Food Security and Farm Protection Act — formerly known as the EATS Act — to override any state law that 'affects' an out-of-state producer. Directly in her crosshairs are laws like California's Proposition 12, which sets humane welfare standards for farm animals. That ballot measure, which voters approved in 2018, was the single biggest win for the meek and miserable farm animals who feed us. It was the result of legislative decision-making that the U.S. Supreme Court has already deemed perfectly constitutional. It also created more demand for animal products sourced from farms employing more traditional husbandry practices — i.e., smaller ones.
The biggest problem for rank-and-file farmers is that the Food Security and Farm Protection Act is vague enough that it could be used to disrupt or derail any state or local agricultural regulation that companies with the means deem inconvenient. That includes, notably, procurement regulations that may favor local producers.
According to a study from Harvard, there are more than 100 food and agricultural procurement laws already on the books. In Louisiana, for example, procurement officials are required to purchase agricultural goods from Louisiana unless out-of-state goods are both cheaper and of higher quality. This would likely qualify as a 'standard or condition on the preharvest production of … agricultural products' that would fall under the Food Security and Farm Protection Act's broad scythe.
Ernst's effort is no outlier. The House Agriculture Committee said that the new farm bill would prevent states from passing animal welfare regulations that others must follow. They are no doubt talking about the Food Security and Farm Protection Act — and, again, it's going to have the effect of overriding state sovereignty not just on the animal protection front but in all areas under the penumbra of state farming policy.
Some commentators have couched the Food Security and Farm Protection Act as an affront to federalism — but, really, all of this activity amounts to an outright fight against small farmers, particularly those interested in something different than the status-quo of factory farmed, chemical- and antibiotics-ridden, steroid-pumped franken-food.
Consider that the Trump administration already axed two programs giving food banks and schools $1 billion in funding to purchase from small farmers and ranchers. And they want to put the kibosh on $754 million for the Natural Resources Conservation Service, which assists farmers with resilience efforts and reduced chemical use. Make America Healthy Again (MAHA)? More like 'HAHA.'
Congressional agriculture policy has become the epitome of the self-licking ice cream cone. We cut programs that help small and organic farmers, then redirect tax dollars to provide subsidies. Those subsidies largely go to the biggest agricultural interests, inoculating them against having to make any broader systemic reforms. Then, under the next administration, we create new programs to support small and organic farmers. Rinse and repeat.
To give congressional agriculture folks their due, the Food Security and Farm Protection Act could go a long way towards ending this loop by making any state-level support for smaller farmers obsolete and allowing the largest interests — like China's Smithfield Foods — to kill any law they don't like. No more demand for humane products — and, hey, higher profit margins while we're at it.
Obviously, this is ridiculous, for all sorts of reasons. What we should do is drop the charade and end or dramatically reduce the crony-capitalist corporate welfare system when it comes to Big Agriculture. Let states pass laws reflecting their own health and safety priorities. Let the consumers speak for themselves. And then let the free market do its work.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
11 hours ago
- USA Today
Supreme Court isn't poised to end gay marriage, despite the media's fearmongering
This case is not likely to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, nor is it anywhere close to ending the constitutional protections for gay marriage. A former county clerk in Kentucky has officially filed a petition to the Supreme Court, asking it to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, the ruling that founda constitutional right to same-sex marriage. People should temper their reactions to this petition. There is no guarantee that this case will be heard, and there is no indication that the nation's highest court is likely to overturn the previous ruling. The general public has a poor understanding of how the Supreme Court, and the judicial branch in general, actually works. The court is not a partisan machine that takes cases based on the whims of the Republican Party, but rather a process-oriented institution that is very restrained. While I understand the fears that members of the LGBTQ+ community hold at the prospect of losing their right to marry, particularly in the context of the hostile cultural swing within the GOP against it, fearmongering coverage only stokes overreactions. This case is not likely to be heard by the court, nor is it anywhere close to ending the constitutional protections for gay marriage. Petitions for review are many, but Supreme Court decides few cases The Supreme Court has discretion over what cases it takes, so a petition for review does not necessarily mean that the panel will consider the issue. It takes the votes of four justices to eventually grant review in a case, which advances it to the court's docket. All of this is to say that just because a petition is filed with the Supreme Court, that doesn't mean it will eventually be heard. The vast majority are never heard. Of the more than 7,000 cases filed each year, the Supreme Court grants review in only 100-150 of them. In 2024, for example, the court ultimately ruled on just 59 cases. While legislation is by no means a complete replacement for a constitutional amendment, the constitutional right to gay marriage is rendered somewhat obsolete by the Respect for Marriage Act, the 2022 piece of bipartisan legislation that requires states to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. The odds of that legislation being overturned are extremely low, given gay marriage's popularity, even among conservatives. Thus, if the constitutional protections for gay marriage were to disappear, the practice still would most likely remain protected. The fearmongering began almost immediately But none of that stopped people from panicking at the prospect of the court considering such a case. Obviously, the partisan hacks of X immediately latched onto this story to fearmonger, but even larger news sources like ABC couldn't help themselves from dedicating feature-length articles to the topic. 'Ten years after the Supreme Court extended marriage rights to same-sex couples nationwide, the justices this fall will consider for the first time whether to take up a case that explicitly asks them to overturn that decision,' said ABC News in an X post. Despite acknowledging the fact that the case is a 'long shot' in its own article on the matter, ABC News chose to frame this piece in this manner because it sensationalizes the potential for Obergefell to be overturned, with little indication that this is not an impending event. Other news sources were far more honest in their framing, but ABC News' post is irresponsible because it capitalizes on a massive problem in American civic education. Others, including USA TODAY, have tied it to President Donald Trump's position, while highlighting that the case is unlikely to succeed. Supreme Court literacy is important, but it's currently lacking At the moment, gay marriage is extremely safe going into the future. So, what is all the worry about? As it stands, very few Americans understand the judicial processes that lead to a case being considered by the Supreme Court. Even many who are otherwise rather politically intelligent understand very little about how the Supreme Court operates. The typical American comically knows little about the Supreme Court, from basic facts like the number of justices to the branch of government the court is housed within. Americans who have a limited understanding of this information naturally have little business understanding the meaning of a petition for certiorari or how precedent is overturned. Partisan sources are aware of this and capitalize on it. Democratic groups have already begun to incorporate the mere fact that someone has petitioned the court to review such a decision. I've written previously about how people's views of the court are far too simplistic, and that is an interconnected problem with this one. People do not understand the dynamic of the court well enough to actually make judgments beyond the partisan talking points. People naturally assume that the conservative majority Supreme Court will always rule in favor of conservative social outcomes, but the justices have proved that's not the case. Sources like the ABC News article may not be malicious, but their potential for harm is still great. America has a problem with civic education when it comes to the Supreme Court, but an honest news media has a responsibility to be conscious of framing court stories in relation to the public's knowledge. Dace Potas is an opinion columnist for USA TODAY and a graduate of DePaul University with a degree in political science.
Politico
a day ago
- Politico
5 questions for Alexandra Reeve Givens
Alexandra Reeve Givens, a leading consumer protection advocate, is the CEO of the Center for Democracy & Technology, a nonprofit that advocates for digital rights. She previously served as the Senate Judiciary Committee's chief counsel covering technology and consumer protection, and directed Georgetown University's Institute for Technology Law & Policy. She talks to us about the problems with age verification and the importance of federal regulators in the age of artificial intelligence. The following has been edited for length and clarity. What's one big, underrated idea? Remembering that widespread adoption of AI is contingent on people's trust. AI agents that carry out routine tasks will work best if they connect with your email and calendar, know your preferences and routines — but users won't take that leap of faith unless companies are thinking seriously about privacy, security and robust user controls. Smart regulation can ensure the protections people need in our AI future, creating a baseline for consumer trust. What technology right now do you think is overhyped? I'm concerned by the wave of age verification tools being rolled out in response to new laws like the U.K.'s Online Safety Act without serious consideration of the trade-offs. The fact that sites are collecting users' driver's licenses, or images of users' faces, raises serious concerns about privacy, data breaches and people's right to access information anonymously. Many of the privacy-preserving techniques are under-theorized, relying on predictive tools that estimate users' ages from photos, which may not work well for everyone and relies on uncertain guarantees that the photos will be deleted. Or analyzing users' online behavior, which raises major privacy and accuracy questions, too. What do you think the government could be doing now about tech that it isn't? Honestly, I'm more worried about what the federal government is doing with technology right now. The Trump administration has taken extraordinary steps to access and consolidate sensitive data about hundreds of millions of people living in this country. From the Department of Homeland Security gaining access to Internal Revenue Service taxpayer and Medicaid information to target immigrants; to the administration demanding that states hand over personal information about the tens of millions of people who have applied for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits; to the Justice Department seeking the details of voter rolls with personal information and party affiliation from at least 19 states. These demands violate longstanding laws and precedents, are being used to profile and target people. [...] This moment should shock the conscience of people on the right and left. What has surprised you most this year? The political firings at the federal agencies charged with protecting consumers, workers, families and voters surprised me for their brazenness. Agencies like the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Federal Trade Commission, Federal Election Commission and Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board play an essential role protecting Americans. [...] The rule of law and well-functioning government serves everyone, consumers and businesses alike. The EEOC has been doing important work on the risk of algorithmic discrimination in hiring and management and firing decisions. [...] The FEC was doing important work on how to boost authentic and trusted sources of information in elections, so also navigating this AI era. And then the PCLOB is the main body charged with overseeing the government's surveillance capabilities. What book most shaped your conception of the future? Reading deeply about the Reconstruction era changed the way I view the world. I still remember as a young person facing the sobering reminder that progress isn't linear, that might can indeed overpower right. And that we have extraordinary forebears in history who persisted in the fight for justice anyway. Obviously, CDT is a tech organization, but we are at bottom a human rights organization. And so, when I view what our job is and what our digital future is, it's about what human rights look like in 2025. That's why this period of history is so relevant. Papers, please The Supreme Court refused to pause a Mississippi age verification law, POLITICO's Gabby Miller reports. The justices on Thursday denied an emergency appeal from NetChoice to temporarily block enforcement while its lawsuit challenging the law plays out in district court. Mississippi enacted the law in 2023, which compels platforms with a substantial portion of pornographic content to implement age-gating measures. NetChoice — an industry group that represents Meta, YouTube and X — argues the age verification requirements violate its members' First Amendment rights. MaryAsa Lee, communications director at the Mississippi Attorney General's Office, told POLITICO in a statement that the state is 'grateful' for the decision as 'the case proceeds in a way that permits thoughtful consideration of these important issues.' Yet the decision isn't a slam-dunk for Mississippi. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in a concurrence that NetChoice was likely to prevail in demonstrating the law violates speech rights, but that it was too early to block it. AI bootcamp House and Senate staffers attended the fourth annual Congressional Boot Camp on AI this week at Stanford's Institute for Human-Centered AI, POLITICO's Chase DiFeliciantonio reports. Chase interviewed HAI's Executive Director Russell Wald to see how the three-day training session is helping staffers write more sophisticated laws for their bosses to push in Congress. The program included attendees from the House Intelligence Committee and the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who is now the director of Stanford's Hoover Institution, also joined to give her thoughts. Wald said there was particular interest in the technological advancement of smaller AI models. These models fulfill narrower tasks like answering patients' health care questions or gathering smart device data, as opposed to larger general-purpose models like ChatGPT. The event also featured a discussion on how the U.S.'s approach to AI differs from China's. The U.S. has traditionally taken a 'brute force approach' by throwing compute power into models, said Wald. U.S. models also tend to be proprietary. China on the other hand has invested more in STEM and public education, and embraced open-source systems, Wald said. post of the day THE FUTURE IN 5 LINKS Stay in touch with the whole team: Aaron Mak (amak@ Mohar Chatterjee (mchatterjee@ Steve Heuser (sheuser@ Nate Robson (nrobson@ and Daniella Cheslow (dcheslow@
Newsweek
a day ago
- Newsweek
How Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Changed Benefits for Immigrants
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Debate has raged in recent months over the access immigrants get to federal benefits and how they pay into the system, with the One Big Beautiful Bill Act making some major changes to that access for some in recent weeks. With different immigrant types, from naturalized citizens to temporary visa holders, receiving different levels of access to health care, education, and financial aid, it has often been difficult to get a clear picture of the situation. On Friday, USAFacts published a breakdown of a range of common benefits, from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to Section 8 housing, as well as the duties immigrants are expected to pay into, with the aim of making the topic clearer. "When I first started this, I naively thought that this would be a little bit simpler, that there would be hard and fast rules that all government programs follow the same process of who is eligible and who is not," Amber Thomas, a senior data visualization engineer at USAFacts, told Newsweek. "It turns out it's really varied, sometimes between programs and sometimes based on immigration status. "So I've included seven different immigration statuses here. These are not all of the immigration statuses that the government recognizes. There are many, many more. But these are the ones that we decided you're most likely to hear about." What Benefits Do Immigrants Get? Under President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) and other legislation introduced to Congress in recent months, some eligibility is being revoked from certain immigrant groups. "The One Big Beautiful Bill obviously covers a lot of different legislation, and within it, there was a section that recategorized who is eligible based on immigrant status for a handful of programs, and that was specifically Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP (Children's Health Insurance Program), SNAP, and marketplace subsidies," Thomas said. Some of the most notable changes are coming for DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) recipients, who had a few months of access to some Medicare programs before that was undone by recent bills. Similar changes have been made for refugees and asylees in the United States. For those interested in participating in the Head Start school readiness program, eligibility is now limited to naturalized citizens, green card holders, refugees, and asylees. Applicants with pending asylum cases, DACA, or non-tourist visas are excluded. A nurse administers a COVID-19 vaccine to a man at a clinic targeting immigrant community members in Los Angeles on March 25, 2021. A nurse administers a COVID-19 vaccine to a man at a clinic targeting immigrant community members in Los Angeles on March 25, have argued that these changes were necessary in order to prevent illegal immigrants from fraudulently using federal government benefits, but immigrant advocates have warned that thousands of people will be left without access to vital health care and other services. "Republicans in Congress have succeeded in our mission to enact President Trump's America First agenda," House Republicans said in a joint statement on July 3. "And importantly, we did it in record time, so that the effects of this nation-shaping legislation can be felt by the American people as soon as possible." While the OBBBA did make some major changes to benefits eligibility for immigrants, other restrictions also remain in effect for new green card holders, with a five-year wait time for access to Social Security, Medicaid, CHIP, SNAP, and TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) benefits. How Can Immigrants Participate in Society? During the 2024 presidential election campaign, and in recent months during the passage of Trump's budget bill, concerns were raised about the duties immigrants were able to participate in and the programs they were paying into. USAFacts also unpacked some of these, clearly explaining that naturalized citizens take part in all five listed above. All immigrants pay taxes in some way, while no other category has the ability to vote in federal elections. There are also varying levels of permissions to work legally and serve in the U.S. military. One area of tension with the OBBBA has been around health care. With all immigrants paying taxes, but not all being able to access Medicare, advocates have repeatedly argued that this is unfair. "We shouldn't be kicking millions of people off Medicaid and denying lifesaving care to fund the Trump administration's extreme deportation machine," Deirdre Schifeling, chief political and advocacy officer with the ACLU, said in a press release in June. "The American people did not vote for this. We will make sure that constituents remember the catastrophic harm this bill does and hold lawmakers accountable." Some of the policies are yet to take effect, with health access revoked in stages: in October 2026 and then in January 2027. Those using SNAP will likely see the changes take effect when they next try to verify their status.
