Billionaire venture capitalist Marc Andreessen's Bay Area mansion just got a price cut to $29.5 million — take a look inside
Veteran venture capitalist Marc Andreessen and his wife, Laura, are selling their Bay Area mansion.
The home hit the market last year for over $33 million but now has a listing price of $29.5 million.
Take a look inside.
After more than a year on the market, Marc Andreessen's Atherton mansion has gotten a price cut.
Marc Andreessen, the founder of the storied venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, and his wife Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen, listed their 12,185-square-foot home in Atherton, California, for $33,375,000 last spring.
The mansion is now listed at $29.5 million. The home's listing agents did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
It's unclear where the Andreessens are headed next. The family declined a previous request for comment. Over the past several years, they've accumulated more than $250 million in property in Malibu, California, according to The Wall Street Journal.
Here's a closer look inside the Andreessen's home for sale:
The home was built in 1995.
It sits on a 1.55-acre lot that's "barely discernible" from the street, according to Compass, the realty firm listing the property. It's also located across from the Menlo Circus Club, a private recreational club that first opened in the 1920s.
The home features a neutral color palette with American cherry and light oak floors.
Aside from the main home, there's also a one-bedroom guest house and a detached office and studio.
The rooms have "extensive" custom built-ins designed to display art.
There are five bedrooms, four bathrooms, and three half-bathrooms on the property.
The interior is light and airy.
There is ample space for entertaining, relaxing, or pondering the state of the startup ecosystem.
There are also seven fireplaces on the property, The Wall Street Journal reported.
The home features two kitchens.
The home has several concealed and visible screens.
"A hallmark of this residence is a commitment to media needs," the listing notes.
There's also ample space to host and entertain guests.
A "defining signature of this property is its capability to host significant personal, professional, & philanthropic events," the listing says. Andreessen and Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen — an educator, author, and philanthropist who founded the Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen Foundation — may have used their home often for hosting.
The home also has a nice gym.
It's equipped with mirrors, free weights, and stationary bikes.
And the grounds themselves are picturesque.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
16 minutes ago
- Business Insider
American tourists can't quite quit Europe
The American dream may be struggling, but for many, the Euro summer dream is alive and well. Jimin Shim, a millennial copywriter who lives in Denver, has plenty of concerns about the economy, from stock market volatility that she feels has been brought on by the current administration to a tough job market. Still, she's vacationing in Portugal later this month, and treating her mom to the trip too. "Traveling is very important to me. I try to do at least one international trip a year and then maybe a couple of domestic trips," she told Business Insider. "And because I know that that is a priority for me, it's something that I budget for and am saving up for all year round." While there's been some softening in leisure travel demand this year, data and surveys suggest Shim is one of many Americans who are weighing their international travel plans against their worries about the economy and saying, "book it." The extent to which Americans are pulling back on international trips this summer is not fully clear. An analysis from Cirium, an aviation analytics company, found summer bookings from the US to Europe were down nearly 10% from January to May compared to last year. Meanwhile, a summer travel survey from Deloitte, released in May, found more Americans were traveling internationally this summer compared to 2024, with most headed to Europe. And a recent data analysis by Allianz Partners, a travel insurance and assistance company, found summer travel from the US to Europe would increase by 10% in 2025. The economy isn't the only reason Americans might rethink travel to Europe this summer. The weakening US dollar doesn't go as far as it used to, and some Americans are worried about their safety or not feeling welcomed abroad due to the current administration's approach to foreign policy. Americans are also waiting longer to book their trips, which could complicate the picture. Still, it's clear that many Americans are traveling abroad despite the downturn in consumer sentiment. "I think you're seeing a hesitancy," Amir Eylon, president and CEO of Longwoods International, a market research consultancy that specializes in the travel tourism industry, told BI. "I still believe a majority of American travelers who were planning to go abroad are still going to go abroad." The enduring appeal of Euro summer Eylon said that while there are indications of a slowdown, it does not look like a "game-changing" shift. His firm's monthly consumer sentiment survey of 1,000 travelers found the number of American travelers who said they were very likely to take an international trip in the next 12 months declined from 25% in January to 19% in May. He noted travelers seemed to be in a "wait and see" mode this spring, echoing what other industry experts have said and previously told BI — that travelers are booking closer to travel dates, in part as they search for good deals. Eylon said it is possible there will be an overall decline in Americans visiting Europe this year, but it's too soon to tell the full picture. He thinks those canceling or ditching trip plans will be in the minority. "American travelers view it as a need more than a want," he said of travel, adding that many see it as a "right." Meredith Pierce, a travel content creator based in Atlanta, said that's exactly how she and many other millennials and Gen Zers view travel, including to Europe. Pierce posts a lot of popular "Euro summer" content and sees it as a persistent and lasting travel trend, even when folks have financial concerns. "Everyone loves the idea of sipping an Aperol spritz and looking at the Mediterranean," Pierce said, "especially if maybe you are stressed in your day-to-day life because of politics or the economy or budgets, or anything like that. A bit of escapism I think comes into play there as well." The hesitancy fueled by economic uncertainty could also make it a bit more affordable to travel to Europe this summer. Eylon noted the slowdown in leisure travel led to some declines in airfare prices, which may have pushed some hesitant Americans to take the plunge. When economic concerns, largely fueled by Trump's tariff policy, intensified in March and April, some airlines suspended their forecasts for the year, and flight prices declined. Rather than get spooked by the economic uncertainty, Pierce believes plenty of people pounced. Her "Euro summer" content from last year started going viral, and she was getting flooded with DMs and questions from people who found a cheap flight to Europe and were suddenly planning their trips. Pierce said some budget-conscious travelers are opting for more affordable and under-the-radar destinations in Europe, such as Albania or Poland, which feature similarly picturesque scenes but at a lower cost than Italy or Paris. More frugal spending once they get to their destination Deloitte's summer travel survey noted that many American travelers already had their big summer trips partially or even fully booked by April, when concerns around tariffs and the economy intensified. The survey also found that while consumers' sense of financial well-being was down year-over-year in April, slightly more Americans planned to take leisure vacations this summer compared to 2024. Deloitte found travelers looking to save were cutting back on in-destination spending as well as opting for more affordable lodging and flight classes. The survey also found that while some are being more frugal, many Americans are prioritizing bucket list trips and international travel, or trips that are otherwise special in some way. Deloitte found 42% of air travelers were flying internationally on their longest summer trip, compared to 38% in 2024. Those traveling internationally were also more likely to increase their travel budget compared to last year. Shim, the copywriter from Denver, also has a special reason for making her Portugal trip work this year, despite her financial concerns. Her family has been going through a tough time after her grandfather's death last year. This vacation is a way to spend quality time with and treat her mom, who has never been to Europe, and take the first trip that's just the two of them. "I also think that sometimes in these times of uncertainty and tumultuousness and a lot of tension and division, traveling and spending quality time with family who loves you is a great way to just take care of your mental and emotional health too," she said, "which I think is also very important to do."
USA Today
21 minutes ago
- USA Today
What does the end of the penny mean? Here's what experts are saying
What does the end of the penny mean? Here's what experts are saying Show Caption Hide Caption Penny production in US to end, Treasury Department says After 233 years, the U.S. this month will officially end penny production, according to statements from the Treasury Department. Penny for your thoughts? Or maybe they are worth a nickel now that the Treasury Department is following President Donald Trump's suggestion to stop making pennies. Last month, the Treasury Department placed its last order of blanks – flat metal discs to make pennies – in a move set into motion by President Donald Trump in February. He argues that the coin costs more than 3 cents to produce (actually 3.69 cents, according to the U.S. Mint). Now that we know it's curtains for the coin, many questions arise. What does the demise of the penny mean for consumers and collectors? Could the last pennies be valuable? Here's what we know. MIA Money: $1.7 trillion sits in lost and forgotten 401(k) accounts. Is one of them yours? Will pennies be more valuable if the US stops making them? Doubtful. The U.S. Mint made about 3.2 billion pennies in 2024, according to its annual report, so there will be billions of 2025 pennies available. "There's nothing, statistically, that says they should become valuable," John Feigenbaum, publisher of rare coin price guide Greysheet and executive director of the Professional Numismatists Guild (PNG), a nonprofit organization composed of many of the nation's rare coin experts, told USA TODAY. The coin's legacy could be akin to the 1976 bicentennial quarter, Feigenbaum said. "Everybody, at the time, was hoarding them (and) you couldn't find bicentennial quarters in change. Now people have plastic bags full of them and they're still worth 25 cents," he added. However, the 2025 pennies could have an alternative value as an entry point to collectors. "This would surely spike demand … in other Lincoln pennies, like the ones that go all the way back to 1909," Feigenbaum said, adding that the Lincoln penny, which first featured the 16th president in that year, has had "quite a run." Parents could get a Lincoln penny coin collecting book – options include those from Whitman Publishing, which also publishes Greysheet – and talk to their children about "American history, and who this Lincoln guy is and what would the different designs be all about," Feigenbaum said. Should I horde 2025 pennies? Not if you are hoping for them to be valuable. Just as there has been misleading hype about the value of some Lincoln wheat pennies, there may be misinformation about the increased value of 2025 pennies. That's nonsense, Feigenbaum said. They are "not going to be" more valuable, according to Feigenbaum, who said he favored getting rid of the penny. Maybe it's a good time to take all those coins gathering dust in a cup or piggy bank to the bank or a Coinstar machine. The average home has $60-$90 in coins at home, according to the Federal Reserve. Are your old pennies worth millions?: Experts say you shouldn't bank on it Getting rid of pennies. Will it save the US money? Maybe. Not making pennies will nix out the more than $179 million it costs taxpayers to make them, based on figures from the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), the department formerly connected to Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk. The U.S. Mint estimates that not making pennies will save $56 million in material costs, with additional savings from better and more efficient production, CNBC reported. 'For every penny that the United States government prints, we're actually losing money. So, it's a net cost to the federal government,' said Raymond Robertson, director of the Mosbacher Institute for Trade, Economics and Public Policy at the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University, in a news release. But the lack of pennies likely means more reliance on nickels, which cost even more to produce – 13.78 cents, the U.S. Mint says. If the U.S. Mint makes more nickels, "It actually is going to increase costs for the government,' Robertson said. 'So, it's really not clear how much cost savings the government will realize by eliminating the penny," he added. One of the bills (H.R. 1270) introduced in the House of Representatives (technically, Congress holds the power to eliminate a currency) also proposes getting rid of the nickel, too. What will the demise of the penny mean to prices? There is no time frame for prices to be set in five-cent increments – a move to change all those prices ending in 49 or 99 cents to the nearest five cents due to lack of pennies – but they will likely eventually, said Bill Maurer, dean of the School of Social Sciences at the University of California, Irvine, and director of UCI's Institute for Money, Technology and Financial Inclusion. When there are not enough pennies for stores and other retailers to make change, businesses will need to round up or down, the Treasury Department said, according to The Wall Street Journal. For the time being, merchants can keep prices as they are, but the 18% to 20% of Americans who rely on cash could eventually pay a rounded-up price, based on 5-cent increments. "If someone comes to you with cash, you round up, right? So if you're kind of doubly screwed if you're poorer," Maurer told USA TODAY. Other countries that have eliminated low-denomination coins – Australia, Canada and New Zealand, among them – have resulted in differing outcomes, with some prices rounding up and some down, according to As the move to eliminate coin and paper currency continues, a publicly-accessible digital payment system will be needed so that consumers of all income levels can participate, Maurer said. But the loss of physical currency removes a redundancy in the monetary system that's invaluable during disasters and emergencies, according to Maurer. "The more dependent on cashless methods of payment we become, the more risk we place ourselves when there are emergencies or disasters, because you need a well-functioning cash system," he continued. Contributing: Fernando Cervantes, Daniel de Visé and Melina Khan. Mike Snider is a reporter on USA TODAY's Trending team. You can follow him on Threads, Bluesky, X and email him at mikegsnider & @ & @mikesnider & msnider@ What's everyone talking about? Sign up for our trending newsletter to get the latest news of the day
Chicago Tribune
25 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Crop insurance costs taxpayers billions but only helps big farms
For farmers who grow anything but soybeans and corn in Illinois, buying crop insurance is nearly impossible. Even an insurance agent couldn't figure out how to safeguard his vegetable and poultry farm against unpredictable weather and plain old bad luck. Ed Dubrick, a first-generation farmer, worked at a local crop insurance agency for two years as he was starting up his small operation. He wanted the same federally subsidized safety net for his grapes, raspberries, asparagus and tomatoes that he was easily selling to row crop farmers. But the bureaucracy was insurmountable. 'After probably two dozen phone calls and at least 100 hours put into trying to figure out what I needed to do, I decided crop insurance was too complicated for my diversified farm. It really felt like an instance of the blind leading the blind,' said Dubrick, a veteran who runs DuChick Ranch on 7 acres in Cissna Park, a small village 100 miles south of Chicago. Crop insurance is intended to support 'food security for American consumers and economic stability for rural America,' according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. But it doesn't cover all crops equally. It's primarily used by farmers growing the nation's four major commodities: corn, soybeans, wheat and cotton. And Illinois is the nation's No. 1 producer of soybeans and No. 2 producer of corn. Only 10 insurance policies were sold to specialty crop farmers last year in Illinois, according to a federal agriculture department census. Meanwhile, nearly 147,000 policies were sold to corn and soybean farmers. 'Does this mean that only 10 farmers in Illinois would benefit from (specialty crop insurance). Absolutely not,' Dubrick said. The federally subsidized program is administered by 12 approved insurance conglomerates who profit more from selling single-crop policies to large operations than multicrop policies to small fruit and vegetable farms. Half of the insurers are subsidiaries of foreign-held multinational corporations based in Japan, Switzerland, Canada and Australia. The Tribune is launching a series of special reports analyzing the hurdles many farmers face in trying to be good stewards of the land as climate change intensifies. Crop insurance is one of these barriers. As currently structured, it helps big farms stay big and keeps fledgling farms small and vulnerable. It's an invisible hand nudging Illinois farmers to cultivate land dominated by neat rows of corn and soybeans. But aggressive farming of only two crops has gradually eroded and depleted nutrients from the Midwest's rich soil. To compensate, grain and bean growers have become increasingly dependent on fertilizers and drainage systems that contaminate water supplies and reduce soil fertility, said Illinois State Climatologist Trent Ford. 'The corn and soybean yields are going up but the question is, how many more inputs are we having to put into the system in order to do that? ' he said. 'Everybody sprays with fungicides now at least twice a year no matter how wet we've been because they just know that's what you do.' Climate change is a wild card that threatens to bring severe drought one year and heavy downpours the next. Farms only growing one or two crops also have less flexibility to adapt. Diversifying harvest is a natural form of insurance, said Anne Schechinger, Midwest director of the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit organization at the intersection of human health and the environment. But, instead of working with nature, she said the federal government throws tens of billions of dollars at antiquated crop insurance policies that benefit large farms and insurance conglomerates. '(Crop insurance) is really keeping farmers on this treadmill of growing the same crops each year, knowing that in 10 to 20 years, it's very likely not going to be sustainable given intensifying climate change,' Schechinger said. Corn and soybean farmers work with a local agent to secure an insurance policy with one of 12 federally approved insurance providers. The policies protect up to 85% of the farmers' historic revenue or yield for a single crop against unforeseeable perils such as natural disasters and market crashes. The USDA's Risk Management Agency subsidizes roughly 60% of a farmer's premium. Farmers are responsible for paying the rest, regardless of whether they own or rent their land. And they never profit from insurance; they just recoup a percentage of their losses. In 2022, the government paid approved insurance providers $12 billion to subsidize premiums and another nearly $4 billion annually to administer the program, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office. In turn, these insurance providers pay local agents a commission to write policies for farmers. 'In so far as who's benefiting most from this system, without question, it's these private insurance companies,' said Billy Hackett, a policy specialist with the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, an alliance of grassroots organizations advocating for federal reforms that support small to midsize family farms and rural communities. The profits have progressively been consolidated in the hands of a few. Over the last decade, 17 federally approved providers have dwindled to a dozen, following a series of buyouts by the publicly traded providers. Ten of the 12 insurers did not respond to requests for comment for this Jones, director of marketing for South Dakota-based Precision Risk Management, said the privately owned provider 'would not be the best fit' to comment on subsidies or the barriers small specialty crop farmers face to receiving insurance. Country Financial, the parent company of Country Mutual, which is based in Illinois, said in a statement from spokesman David Beigie that it supports crop insurance reforms benefiting farmers, companies and agents and 'strongly opposes' cuts to the federal programming. 'In the face of severe weather in Illinois and in other parts of the country, we work with farm clients to help mitigate risk and ensure they have the proper insurance protections for their farming operations,' the statement said. Country Financial and another Illinois-based insurer, American Farm Bureau Insurance Services, have ties to nonprofit groups made up of farmers and non-farmers that lobby for biofuel production, free trade and agricultural subsidies, including crop insurance subsidies. Several people on the leadership team of Country Financial have previously worked at or have joint positions at the Illinois Farm Bureau, which spent $120,000 lobbying on Capitol Hill last year. American Farm Bureau Insurance Services, also based in Illinois, is partially owned by the American Farm Bureau Federation, a national lobbying group that calls itself 'the unified national voice of agriculture' and sowed doubt that climate change was real until a few years ago. It spent more than $7 million lobbying in Washington in the two years before the passage of the last farm bill in September 2018. Last year, as talks were underway about the next farm bill, the federation spent over $1.3 million lobbying. The Crop Insurance and Reinsurance Bureau, an advocacy group that includes eight of the 12 approved providers in its membership, has consistently spent $320,000 to $400,000 annually on lobbying since 2014. 'I 100% have a concern about it,' said U.S. Rep. Jonathan Jackson, a Democrat from Chicago who sits on the House Agriculture Committee. He'd like to see more woman- and minority-owned insurance firms on the list of federally approved providers. 'It is a public-private partnership where the government is covering 60% of the premiums. That, to me, is a strong call to make the case for diversity, equity and inclusion.' Congress is negotiating a new farm bill this year, but previous legislation prohibits the federal government from making any changes to crop insurance that would lower the subsidies providers receive. 'It's not dissimilar from how the federal government hasn't been allowed to negotiate for lower drug prices through Medicare. A similar dynamic exists here in crop insurance, and that was a very intentional provision that was added in the 2014 farm bill,' Hackett said. Farms were highly diversified and much smaller in the 1920s, said Scott Irwin, a professor of agricultural marketing at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. They still would have grown plenty of corn but less soybeans. Lots of ground was used to grow oats and hay to feed the horses that did most of the manual labor. As motorized vehicles became popular, there was less need for horses. Illinois' flat land was ideally suited for mechanical agriculture: tractors, combines and planters. And, fewer horses meant less need for hay and oats. Field space freed up just as Americans' appetite for meat increased. Soybeans, an import from East Asia, were an ideal high-protein diet for livestock. It just so happened that they grew well in Illinois. A connected network of rivers also positioned Illinois to export grain and beans throughout the Americas. Railroads were built to further facilitate the transfer. Food processors such as ADM and Cargill set up shop in Illinois to be closer to their raw ingredients and benefit from the region's robust transportation system. 'You stir all that together and you get Illinois' comparative advantage within the U.S. and globally to produce corn and soybeans at scale,' said Irwin. Today, one would be hard-pressed to find a rural town in Illinois where a tall silo can't be seen beyond acres of open field. Crop insurance has kept Illinois committed to these two by Congress in the late 1930s in response to the Great Depression and Dust Bowl, crop insurance was intended to reduce the need for ad hoc disaster spending. In recent years, however, it has become a near-constant form of disaster spending. The top five weather-related losses resulted in over $118.7 billion in payouts nationally from 2001 to 2022, according to the Environmental Working Group. But, crop insurance companies rarely lost money because they have been allowed to assign higher risk policies to the federal government. The only year crop insurance companies did not profit was 2012, when extreme drought ravaged the majority of the country. Payouts in Illinois topped $3.5 billion. Droughts are anticipated to become increasingly common between intense storms as climate change makes Illinois significantly warmer and wetter. So far, the higher temperatures have been concentrated in the winter and at night. This has made growing seasons longer, actually giving corn and soybean farmers more flexibility. It's also much easier to deal with too much water via drainage systems than the total lack of water that growing regions in the American Southwest are facing. 'We're more resilient, not necessarily because of measures that have been put in place, but because of a little bit of fortune in where we live,' said Ford, the Illinois state climatologist. Warmer, wetter conditions do, however, increase the prevalence of pests and bacteria, and a 2022 USDA report encouraged Illinois farmers to begin planting crops that are better suited for heat and water stress such as okra and peppers. But the consequences of climate change have yet to truly be felt on Illinois farms. 'With (fertilizers, pesticides) and the proliferation of crop insurance, the non-climate pieces of agriculture are crafted such that the climate risk we do face in the Midwest is subsidized,' Ford said. It may even shield farmers from having to think about climate change, he suggested. He has noticed that specialty crop farmers tend to be more keyed into the impacts of climate change and resilience strategies because their crop insurance systems are less robust. While farmers who grow relatively small amounts of lots of different crops, instead of just corn and soybeans, can technically buy a special plan instituted in 2014 called whole farm revenue protection, it's not well-known or easily accessible. Only 9% of specialty crop farms nationwide were insured in 2022 compared with 62% of row crop farms, according to federal agriculture department data. Dubrick was one of several diversified farmers the Tribune spoke to who explored the whole farm revenue protection plan for his vegetables and poultry but decided it was too much of a bureaucratic nightmare. He would have had to submit meticulous expense reports for every crop he grew, a cumbersome task that takes farmers' attention away from the field. 'Farming is where I find my solace and enjoyment,' Dubrick said on an overcast afternoon in early April. Dubrick's home and farm are across the street from the former home and farm of a local man he looked up to like a grandfather, who sparked his love of farming and is the namesake of his 1-year-old son, Calvin. Today, he makes all his financial decisions with his wife Lindsey, son Calvin and 3-year-old daughter Evelyn in mind. A plan that offered security while he grew his operation would be attractive, Dubrick said. In the early years, he aspired to triple his revenue to support this growing family. But whole farm revenue protection plans would only let him assume up to a 35% increase in his revenue compared to the previous year. It wouldn't be enough. 'If I knew I had a floor of what I was going to get any given year (like grain farmers), I would be more apt to invest in infrastructure and scale up more efficiencies,' said Dubrick. Many farmers don't even know about whole farm protection. Only seven of the nearly 1,600 agents who sell crop insurance in Illinois are licensed to sell whole farm plans, according to a Tribune analysis of federal agriculture department data. Agents aren't incentivized to sell whole farm plans because the 12 insurance companies pay them based on the amount of the premium they secure. It takes more time to tailor coverage to small, multi-crop farms that will inevitably pay lower premiums to insurance companies. Democrats on Capitol Hill introduced legislation in 2023 to subsidize insurance companies based on the complexity of a policy rather than the size. It would provide funds to train insurance agents on how to write whole farm policies. The legislation was intended to push insurance companies to give agents more commission for selling whole farm revenue protection plans, encouraging a safety net for small diversified farms. But the bill, called the Whole Farm Revenue Protection Program Improvement Act, didn't go anywhere. Instead, the largest 2% of policies account for over 36% — or $759 million — of the subsidies given to insurance conglomerates. So, when the Trump administration's Department of Government Efficiency posted an open call for 'insights on finding and fixing waste, fraud and abuse related to the US Department of Agriculture' on Elon Musk's X in mid-February, Schechinger decided to make a suggestion. She took to BlueSky, an X competitor: 'how about the $2B taxpayers send to private crop insurance companies/agents each year just to operate the program?' The government paid $2.2 billion in administrative and operating subsidies to crop insurance providers in 2022. It doled out another $1.5 billion in underwriting gains, which equal the difference between the premiums collected and losses paid out. 'I think (crop insurance) should be on DOGE's hit list, but not the money that's going to farmers,' Schechinger told the Tribune later that day. The USDA did not respond to requests for comment. If the government were interested in reining in insurance company profits, Schechinger said it could implement changes to the public-private partnership in the next farm bill. The comprehensive package of legislation that dictates agriculture policy is supposed to be updated every five years, but the bill that the country is operating under expired in 2023. A gridlocked Congress gave it two one-year extensions. The new expiration date is Sept. 30. Senate Democrats included the Whole Farm Revenue Protection Program Improvement Act in their latest farm bill framework. Meanwhile, a competing farm bill introduced by House Republicans sidestepped the issue. U.S. Rep. Eric Sorenson, a former meteorologist who represents parts of north and central Illinois, was one of four Democrats on the House Agriculture Committee who voted in favor of the Republican bill. His office did not respond to requests for comment. Neither the House Republican nor Senate Democrat proposals sought to rein in the insurance companies' claim to taxpayer dollars. 'The (National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition) doesn't have a policy that advocates blowing up the public-private partnership because of just how radical that is,' said Hackett, the coalition's policy specialist. 'You don't touch it.' Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, a Senate Agriculture Committee member, had once championed a bill that would reduce crop insurance premium support for top-earning farmers. Instead of subsidizing 60% of the policy, the federal government would subsidize 45%. He abandoned the proposal, which came to be nicknamed 'the Durbin amendment,' in the latest farm bill negotiations after it failed to garner enough votes to include it in the two earlier farm bills. The senator and his team declined to comment on the matter when approached by the Tribune in April shortly before he announced his intent to retire. However, in recent months, his team shifted its attention from high-earning farmers to the impact of climate change related losses on the crop insurance industry. Durbin met with the Illinois Corn Growers Association in March to discuss how to insulate Illinois from premium hikes as southern states see more crop failures and file more claims. Crop insurance companies are already strategizing how to minimize their losses as climate change intensifies. Since they receive federal subsidies, they cannot withdraw from markets as easily as home insurance providers have in fire-, hurricane- and flood-prone areas. Last year, the federal government blocked insurance providers' attempts to pull out of West Texas, a region that's been scorched by heat and drought. 'This may be the first proverbial canary in the coal mine,' said Jonathan Coppess, a professor of agricultural policy at the U. of I. and an Agriculture Department appointee under the Obama administration. 'It's not an imminent collapse, but it is indicative of a very real, big and growing problem. Why are we insuring areas that cannot produce a crop year in and year out? I think that's a real challenge for the system.' As West Texas and other regions start feeling the impacts of climate change more intensively, premiums could rise nationwide. States like Illinois, which aren't anticipated to experience as intense extremes, may decide crop insurance isn't worth it for them, leaving only those in high-risk areas buying policies. This, Coppess warns, could be how the crop insurance industry comes tumbling down. The USDA did not respond to requests for comment, nor did U.S. Sen. Tammy Duckworth or Reps. Mike Bost, Nikki Budzinski and Mary Miller, who represent Illinois on the House Agriculture Committee. Meanwhile, without crop insurance, diversified farmers in the Midwest like Dubrick have gotten creative with nature. When a drought hit in summer 2023 and he lost nearly half of the revenue he was expecting for May through July, he was able to recoup some of his losses by pivoting to crops in other growing seasons. Corn and soybeans, on the other hand, have one optimal planting and harvesting window per year. Last year, Dubrick planted over 30 different crops to ensure he was prepared for whatever weather came his way. 'Peas like cool weather, but tomatoes and peppers want warm weather, and peppers do really well in drought. Tomatoes do better with some more moisture,' he said. 'The diversity is my insurance.' But Dubrick would feel more secure if there was a form of crop insurance that worked for him. 'Just point-blank honesty, the revenue safety net that we've leaned on the most is that my wife and I both have off-farm jobs,' Dubrick said. 'We can't lean into the farm because there's just too much unknown. Some years, I could be full time on the farm, and then the next year I would go bankrupt.'
