How the lone farmer running a state government is navigating Trump's turbulent policies
We've got an incredibly strong economy, but agriculture drives it. We feed the world from Nebraska agriculture and save the planet, and we raise way more than we can consume in the United States and in Nebraska. So international trade is gigantic, and those relationships are important. Everybody we do business [with] understands that we have to have fair, long-term relationships.
I've been a big advocate my whole life that we've been messing up with how we do trade. It has to be fair. It's got to be free. And it's got to be balanced. So when the country is out of whack with trade deficits that we're being severely taken advantage of, it hurts us in a few spots. We're getting dinged right now a little bit [in the agriculture sector], but we're in it for the long haul. Nebraska, farmers and ranchers. We're not publicly traded companies. We're not looking for a return next quarter. We're in it for the next generations. What President Trump's doing, I'm 100 percent with him.
The reconciliation bill includes cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which benefits 155,000 Nebraskans, 8 percent of the population. What do you think about the state potentially taking up that burden?
Here's what's really, really important to understand. Number one, the people in Nebraska, we've got each other's backs. We step up and take care of people and solve problems. If the federal government is going to have mandates on us and not [support them] economically, we're going to have conversations. If we have to pay for it, we're going to run it our way.
It's simple, we're going to take care of the vulnerable Nebraskans. But again, if the federal government has a program that we have to pay for, we're going to do it the Nebraska way, not the federal government's way.
'The First Furrow' by artist James Penney hangs in a vestibule of the Nebraska State Capitol. | Shia Kapos/POLITICO
What is the Nebraska way?
The Nebraska way is education and innovation, not regulation. People aren't buying pop and candy, they're getting the best value to feed their family.
A bill that you supported during the legislative session would restrict business dealings with foreign adversaries. Would that impact your company doing business with Smithfield Foods, which is owned by a Chinese company?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
WSJ Reporter Breaks Down Timeline of Trump-Putin Relationship
WSJ's Alexander Ward breaks down the relationship between President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, and how it's only now showing signs of souring over an elusive peace deal in Ukraine.
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's BRICS Warning to India Adds New Twist to Trade Deal
(Bloomberg) -- President Donald Trump's threat to impose new tariffs on India over its participation in the BRICS forum puts New Delhi in a tough position as it races to finalize a favorable trade deal with the US. Singer Akon's Failed Futuristic City in Senegal Ends Up a $1 Billion Resort Are Tourists Ruining Europe? How Locals Are Pushing Back Can Americans Just Stop Building New Highways? Denver City Hall Takes a Page From NASA Philadelphia Trash Piles Up as Garbage Workers' Strike Drags On Trump said Tuesday that India could face an additional 10% tariff alongside other members of BRICS — a bloc of emerging economies he has labeled 'Anti-American.' The remarks came just a day after the US leader said he was close to finalizing a trade deal that New Delhi hopes would give it reprieve from 26% reciprocal tariffs. The US president followed that warning by unveiling a new round of levies, including a 50% rate on Brazil, one of the highest so far announced for the tariffs which are set to hit in August. The letter to Brazil comes just after a two-day BRICS summit in Rio de Janeiro, in which leaders agreed on a joint statement that criticized trade-distorting tariffs. But while Brazil and South Africa have blasted Trump separately for his comments, India has refrained from responding publicly, a sign that it's treading a fine line in maintaining its relationship with Washington. Officials in New Delhi say they're not overly alarmed by Trump's latest threats for now. The US leader's view is that BRICS is seeking to undermine the dominance of the US dollar, which is not India's goal, the officials said, asking not to be identified because the discussions are private. India doesn't support moves for a single BRICS currency, and any participation in local currency trade arrangements are aimed solely at reducing risks, they said. India's Ministry of Commerce and Industry didn't respond to an email seeking comment. Senior Indian diplomat P Kumaran said at a press briefing on Tuesday that Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Brazilian counterpart Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva had 'no discussion' on Trump's tariff threats during the Indian leader's state visit there. 'We didn't have an opportunity to discuss that.' With India set to assume the BRICS chairmanship in 2026, it will need to differentiate itself from members like China and Russia, who are seeking to build the bloc as a stronger opposition voice to the US. India would be banking on its strategic value and neutral currency stance to be treated differently by Washington. 'Trump is unhappy with some BRICS members who have been talking about an alternate reserve currency,' said Mohan Kumar, a former Indian envoy and lead negotiator at the World Trade Organization, who now teaches at OP Jindal Global University. 'India has time and again differentiated between local currency trade and de-dollarization and therefore doesn't fall in that category.' India has been cultivated by several US administrations over the years as a strategic partner and key regional counterweight to an increasingly assertive China. As recently as April, US Vice President JD Vance remarked that the fate of the 21st century 'is going to be determined by the strength of the United States and India partnership.' Those ties have recently come under strain, though, after Trump took credit for brokering a ceasefire between India and Pakistan in May. Modi has pushed back at Trump's claims he used trade as a bargaining tool to secure a truce. The Trump administration has also made overtures to Islamabad, including its powerful army chief, in the aftermath of the conflict, a source of concern in New Delhi. Much is riding on the success of the India-US trade deal, which both countries have pledged to finalize by the fall of this year. Shashi Tharoor, an opposition lawmaker who has led India's diplomatic outreach since the Pakistan conflict, said a trade deal would signify the strong ties between the two countries. 'The relationship with the US is in a good shape,' he said in an interview in London on Tuesday. If the terms of the trade deal are agreed, 'that will be a very, very healthy sign.' After months of talks, Indian trade negotiators have put forward their best offer to the Trump administration and are now awaiting a response. The latest tariff threats from Trump may also be a bargaining tool to secure more concessions from New Delhi. Trump has previously threatened to slap 100% levies on BRICS if they ditch the dollar in bilateral trade. 'We need to distinguish between President Trump's narrative and his action,' Kumar said. Follow Bloomberg India on WhatsApp for exclusive content and analysis on what billionaires, businesses and markets are doing. Sign up here. --With assistance from Prateek Mazumdar and Unni Krishnan. (Updates with details of US slapping 50% tariff on Brazil) Will Trade War Make South India the Next Manufacturing Hub? 'Our Goal Is to Get Their Money': Inside a Firm Charged With Scamming Writers for Millions Pistachios Are Everywhere Right Now, Not Just in Dubai Chocolate 'Telecom Is the New Tequila': Behind the Celebrity Wireless Boom SNAP Cuts in Big Tax Bill Will Hit a Lot of Trump Voters Too ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Gaza permanent ceasefire 'questionable' - but possible 'within weeks, not a day', says senior Israeli official
A senior Israeli official has issued a less-than-optimistic assessment of the permanency of any ceasefire in Gaza. Speaking in Washington on condition of anonymity, the senior official said that a 60-day ceasefire "might" be possible within "a week, two weeks - not a day". But on the chances of the ceasefire lasting beyond 60 days, the official said: "We will begin negotiations on a permanent settlement. "But we achieve it? It's questionable, but Hamas will not be there." Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is due to conclude a four-day visit to Washington later today. There had been hope that a ceasefire could be announced during the trip. US President Donald Trump has repeatedly stated that it's close. Speaking at a briefing for a number of reporters, the Israeli official would not be drawn on any of the details of the negotiations over concerns that public disclosure could jeopardise their chances of success. The major sticking point in the talks between and is the status of the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) inside Gaza during the 60-day ceasefire and beyond, should it last longer. The latest Israeli proposal, passed to Hamas last week, included a map showing the proposed IDF presence inside during the ceasefire. Read more: This was rejected by Hamas and by Trump's Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, who reportedly told the Israelis that the redeployment map "looks like a Smotrich plan", a reference to the extreme-right Israeli finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich. The official repeated Israel's central stated war aims of getting the hostages back and eliminating Hamas. But in a hint of how hard it will be to reconcile the differences, the official was clear that no permanent ceasefire would be possible without the complete removal of Hamas. "We will offer them a permanent ceasefire," he told Sky News. "If they agree. Fine. It's over. "They lay down their arms, and we proceed [with the ceasefire]. If they don't, we'll proceed [with the war]." On the status of the Israeli military inside Gaza, the official said: "We would want IDF in every square meter of Gaza, and then hand it over to someone..." He added: "[We] don't want to govern Gaza... don't want to govern, but the first thing is, you have to defeat Hamas..." The official said the Israeli government had "no territorial designs for Gaza". "But [we] don't want Hamas there," he continued. "You have to finish the job... victory over Hamas. You cannot have victory if you don't clear out all the fighting forces. "You have to go into every square inch unless you are not serious about victory. I am. We are going to defeat them. Those who do not disarm will die. Those who disarm will have a life." On the future of Gaza, the official ruled out the possibility of a two-state solution "for the foreseeable future". "They are not going to have a state in the foreseeable future as long as they cling to that idea of destroying our state. It doesn't make a difference if they are the Palestinian Authority or Hamas, it's just a difference of tactics." Read more: On the most controversial aspect of the Gaza conflict - the movement of the population - the official predicted that 60% of Palestinians would "choose to leave". But he claimed that Israel would allow them to return once Hamas had been eliminated, adding: "It's not forcible eviction, it's not permanent eviction." Critics of Israel's war in Gaza say that any removal of Palestinians from Gaza, even if given the appearance of being "voluntary," is in fact anything but, because the strip has been so comprehensively flattened. Reacting to Israeli Defence Minister Katz's recent statement revealing a plan to move Palestinians into a "humanitarian city" in southern Gaza, and not let them out of that area, the official wouldn't be drawn, except to say: "As a permanent arrangement? Of course not."
