logo
Trump Cuts Could Squeeze Small Farmers and Food Banks

Trump Cuts Could Squeeze Small Farmers and Food Banks

New York Times13-03-2025
At Happy Hollow Farm, a small, 16-acre operation in central Missouri, Liz Graznak grows a variety of vegetables, including organic carrots, Swiss chard, radishes and beets.
Some of those vegetables go to local distributors where they are placed in boxes, alongside meat and dairy items also produced in the state, and delivered to low-income people. Other vegetables are sent to school districts that would normally not have the budget to serve students fresh, locally grown produce.
For Ms. Graznak, about $240,000, or roughly a quarter of her farm's annual revenue, came from the two federal programs that supported these efforts.
This week, she learned that the Agriculture Department had abruptly eliminated the programs. In a Fox News interview on Tuesday, Brooke L. Rollins, the agriculture secretary, called the programs 'nonessential' and 'an effort by the left to continue spending taxpayer dollars that was not necessary.'
Now, Ms. Graznak fears that her small farm is at risk. Like many farmers, she relies on loans, and she worries about how to make payments on the $750,000 she owes.
'My farm production has more than doubled in size in the last two and a half to three years because of these programs and this income,' Ms. Graznak said. 'That money was supporting the growth of my farm. I'm leveraged so high, it's scary. I'm struggling with that right now.'
The Biden administration created the two programs during the coronavirus pandemic to strengthen local supply chains. They had provided $1 billion in grants to states, which then made money available to school districts, food banks and distribution hubs to buy produce, meat, fish, dairy and other minimally processed foods from over 8,000 local farmers.
In December, the Agriculture Department announced another tranche of $1.1 billion in funding for the programs: the Local Food Purchase Assistance Cooperative Agreement and the Local Foods for Schools program. But the Trump administration notified recipients last week that it had decided to terminate both.
Money for the programs came through the department's Commodity Credit Corporation, a pot of money replenished annually. The agriculture secretary has broad discretion to revoke that funding and use it for purposes aligned with the administration's aims. The first Trump administration used the funds to pay farmers hurt by his trade war with China, while the Biden administration spent it on promoting climate-friendly farming practices and local food systems.
A spokesperson for the agency said in a statement that the sunsetting of the programs marked 'a return to long-term, fiscally responsible initiatives' and that 'the Covid era is over.'
Some participants, however, expressed surprise that the programs were suddenly scrapped, saying they seemed to intersect with many of the Trump administration's priorities. The administration has vowed to support farmers and to encourage Americans to eat healthier foods, and to empower states to oversee and distribute the funds.
'These were programs that had Republican support in many states,' said Katie Nixon, board president for the Kansas City Food Hub, an organization that connected local farmers like Ms. Graznak with community programs and schools. Last week, the group set up outside a diner in Stockton, Mo., and distributed free boxes of fresh food and produce. About half of the recipients were elderly, and would most likely find it difficult to trek to a larger city for access to a food bank, according to the food hub.
Representative GT Thompson, Republican of Pennsylvania and chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, said in a statement: 'The administration is acting within its authority to revisit these programs, which were created as part of the previous administration using temporary American Rescue Plan funds. These were never meant to be permanent, especially when longstanding farm bill programs already provide food assistance that supports farmers, families, and rural communities.'
The Kansas City Food Hub estimates Missouri will lose nearly $20 million from the two programs. 'To get notice on a Friday afternoon, with no forewarning,' Ms. Nixon said. 'It's already late in the season. Farmers have already started preparing for those sales.'
Tom McDougall, the founder and chief executive of 4P Foods, a food distributor and delivery company in Virginia, noted that the local food programs were not unlike the Farmers to Families boxes created by the first Trump administration. That program delivered 170 million boxes of free fresh food to Americans in need from farmers whose markets were disrupted by the pandemic.
'These programs are not handouts,' he said. 'These are investments in the future of an America First food system, right? And it's a system where family-owned farms can thrive once again.'
Had the local food programs not been canceled, they would have provided $3 million for 4P Foods to buy produce, meat, dairy and other products from 200 farmers and producers in the mid-Atlantic region to distribute to food banks and schools. Without the funding, Mr. McDougall anticipates having to scale back orders at some farms and stop working with others altogether.
For organizations that provide food directly to children and families, the elimination of the programs could lead to less healthy meals and fewer purchases from local farmers.
The Food Bank of Central and Eastern North Carolina would have received $2 million in 2025 to buy fresh fruits, vegetables, beef, pork and eggs from two dozen local growers and producers, including two that grow exclusively for the food bank.
'We have heard some of our farmers say that this program has allowed their family farm to stay open,' said Amy Beros, the food bank's president.
Need in the community remains high — 100,000 more people used the food bank last year than in 2023, Ms. Beros said — and a volatile economy means revenue from fund-raising is drying up. The local food program's elimination may force charities like the food bank to limit purchases of local produce.
At the Capistrano Unified School District in Southern California, the local food program was set to cover $239,000 in purchases from local farmers, said Kristin Hilleman, the district's school nutrition supervisor.
Ms. Hilleman used previous funding to buy hydroponic lettuce for sandwiches, beef for burger patties, and magenta dragon fruit and organic apples to replace cookies and other processed desserts. 'It's the whole MAHA thing!' she said, referring to the 'Make America Healthy Again' mantra of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the health and human services secretary, who has made replacing ultraprocessed foods in the American diet a top priority.
Without the funding, Ms. Hilleman said, she will have to reassess her plan for the coming school year and may forgo those purchases or cut elsewhere.
The Great Valley School District in Malvern, Pa., was set to receive between $3,000 and $5,000 for the school year, estimated the district's food service supervisor, Nichole Taylor. That amount, seemingly paltry in comparison with its general food budget, was enough to provide seven schools with locally grown apples and pears for half a year, allowing her to 'buy American,' Ms. Taylor said.
Mr. McDougall of the Virginia food hub acknowledged that it was the Trump administration's prerogative to cancel the programs.
But 'the government has a choice to make now,' he said. 'What do we want our children and families to eat? Where do we want that food to come from? And as a result, what type of agricultural economy are they going to support?'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump calls on Fed Governor Cook to resign
Trump calls on Fed Governor Cook to resign

Yahoo

timea few seconds ago

  • Yahoo

Trump calls on Fed Governor Cook to resign

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday called on Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook to resign, citing a call by the head of the U.S. Federal Housing Finance Agency urging the Department of Justice to probe Cook over alleged mortgage fraud. Representatives for Cook could not be immediately reached for comment on the allegations posted by FHFA Director Bill Pulte on X earlier on Wednesday. Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data

Trump thinks owning a piece of Intel would be a good deal for the US. Here's what to know
Trump thinks owning a piece of Intel would be a good deal for the US. Here's what to know

Yahoo

timea few seconds ago

  • Yahoo

Trump thinks owning a piece of Intel would be a good deal for the US. Here's what to know

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — President Donald Trump wants the U.S. government to own a piece of Intel, less than two weeks after demanding the Silicon Valley pioneer dump the CEO that was hired to turn around the slumping chipmaker. If the goal is realized, the investment would deepen the Trump administration's involvement in the computer industry as the president ramps up the pressure for more U.S. companies to manufacture products domestically instead of relying on overseas suppliers. What's happening? The Trump administration is in talks to secure a 10% stake in Intel in exchange for converting government grants that were pledged to Intel under President Joe Biden. If the deal is completed, the U.S. government would become one of Intel's largest shareholders and blur the traditional lines separating the public sector and private sector in a country that remains the world's largest economy. Why would Trump do this? In his second term, Trump has been leveraging his power to reprogram the operations of major computer chip companies. The administration is requiring Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices, two companies whose chips are helping to power the craze around artificial intelligence, to pay a 15% commission on their sales of chips in China in exchange for export licenses. Trump's interest in Intel is also being driven by his desire to boost chip production in the U.S., which has been a focal point of the trade war that he has been waging throughout the world. By lessening the country's dependence on chips manufactured overseas, the president believes the U.S. will be better positioned to maintain its technological lead on China in the race to create artificial intelligence. Didn't Trump want Intel's CEO to quit? That's what the president said August 7 in an unequivocal post calling for Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan to resign less than five months after the Santa Clara, California, company hired him. The demand was triggered by reports raising national security concerns about Tan's past investments in Chinese tech companies while he was a venture capitalist. But Trump backed off after Tan professed his allegiance to the U.S. in a public letter to Intel employees and went to the White House to meet with the president, who applauded the Intel CEO for having an 'amazing story.' Why would Intel do a deal? The company isn't commenting about the possibility of the U.S. government becoming a major shareholder, but Intel may have little choice because it is currently dealing from a position of weakness. After enjoying decades of growth while its processors powered the personal computer boom, the company fell into a slump after missing the shift to the mobile computing era unleashed by the iPhone's 2007 debut. Intel has fallen even farther behind in recent years during an artificial intelligence craze that has been a boon for Nvidia and AMD. The company lost nearly $19 billion last year and another $3.7 billion in the first six months of this year, prompting Tan to undertake a cost-cutting spree. By the end of this year, Tan expects Intel to have about 75,000 workers, a 25% reduction from the end of last year. Would this deal be unusual? Although rare, it's not unprecedented for the U.S. government to become a significant shareholder in a prominent company. One of the most notable instances occurred during the Great Recession in 2008 when the government injected nearly $50 billion into General Motors in return for a roughly 60% stake in the automaker at a time it was on the verge of bankruptcy. The government ended up with a roughly $10 billion loss after it sold its stock in GM. Would the government run Intel? U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told CNBC during a Tuesday interview that the government has no intention of meddling in Intel's business, and will have its hands tied by holding non-voting shares in the company. But some analysts wonder if the Trump administration's financial ties to Intel might prod more companies looking to curry favor with the president to increase their orders for the company's chips. What government grants does Intel receive? Intel was among the biggest beneficiaries of the Biden administration's CHIPS and Science Act, but it hasn't been able to revive its fortunes while falling behind on construction projects spawned by the program. The company has received about $2.2 billion of the $7.8 billion pledged under the incentives program — money that Lutnick derided as a 'giveaway' that would better serve U.S. taxpayers if it's turned into Intel stock. 'We think America should get the benefit of the bargain,' Lutnick told CNBC. 'It's obvious that it's the right move to make.' Michael Liedtke, The Associated Press

Repealing EPA's endangerment finding will cause a public health nightmare
Repealing EPA's endangerment finding will cause a public health nightmare

The Hill

time2 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Repealing EPA's endangerment finding will cause a public health nightmare

As America faces increasing health threats from wildfire smoke, summer heat waves and rising cases of asthma and other respiratory illnesses, the last thing we need is to reverse laws that protect U.S. air quality. Yet, that's precisely what the Trump administration intends to do by proposing a repeal of a central scientific finding that serves as the basis for the Clean Air Act — legislation that has saved millions of American lives and been responsible for monumental advancements both to our environment and public health. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin announced last month the agency plans to end a long-held 'endangerment finding' that asserts carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases present a risk to human health. If that happens, it will neutralize the federal government's ability to combat climate change and enforce laws intended to protect America's wellbeing. One of those laws is the Clean Air Act. Enacted in 1970, it has been one of the most successful public health policies in U.S. history. It's credited with reducing six of the most common air pollutants in the U.S. by nearly 80 percent while saving over 230,000 early deaths and avoiding over 120,000 emergency room visits every year. It has reduced chronic bronchitis, infant mortality and prevented millions of cases of asthma exacerbation as well. These statistics aren't conjecture: They're sourced directly from the EPA's own website, the same agency now leading the charge to turn the clock back on these remarkable achievements. Zeldin's announcement claims that the reversal of the endangerment finding will 'undo the underpinning of $1 trillion in costly regulations.' But the positive U.S. economic impact from the Clean Air Act alone far exceeds this figure. By reducing hospital visits, sick days and treatment of costly respiratory-related disease, the EPA estimates the Clean Air Act has created $2 trillion in U.S. economic benefit as of 2020 — twice the amount Zeldin asserts the endangerment finding's repeal would create. Further, clean energy has proven itself to be a source of strong job creation. The Department of Energy found that jobs in renewable energy grew more than twice as fast as the vibrant 2023 U.S labor market. And the science couldn't be clearer: Clean air is critical to public health. 'Decades of research have shown that air pollutants such as ozone and particulate matter increase the amount and seriousness of lung and heart disease and other health problems,' the EPA states. Worse, those pollutants are disproportionately burdened by communities of color. A 2024 Milken Institute of Public Health study found that marginalized communities have eight times the number of pediatric asthma cases and a 30 percent higher chance of dying early from pollution exposure. That same study attributed this inequality to the close proximity many minority communities share with industrial manufacturing facilities. Imagine what those numbers would be if the endangerment finding is reversed and the U.S. can no longer enforce Clean Air Act provisions. Zeldin referred to the EPA action as 'driving a dagger into the heart of the climate change religion,' and that it would be 'the largest deregulatory action in the history of America.' But doing so will only cause greater sickness in America and inundate an already stressed U.S. health care system. Increased exposure to air pollution will result in higher numbers of emergency room visits, increased rates of chronic illness and heightened health care costs. The medical and environmental advocacy community agree greater exposure to carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas is a bad idea. Groups such as the American Lung Association, American Public Health Association, American Thoracic Society, World Wildlife Fund, along with nursing organizations and medical societies all stand in strong opposition to the EPA's proposed action. Zeldin's proposal follows another questionable deregulatory move by the EPA in recent weeks to reintroduce dicamba, a weed killer used on soybeans and cotton. Use of the pesticide was halted by a federal court last year. A 2020 study in the International Journal of Epidemiology found that exposure to dicamba was reportedly 'linked to some cancers, including liver cancer and a type of leukemia affecting the blood and bone marrow.' But the EPA has argued it 'has not identified any human health or dietary risks of concern.' The U.S. government's job is to protect America's citizens. The Clean Air Act has saved millions of lives, safeguarded our skies and proven that environmental laws and economic progress can peacefully coexist. Repealing the endangerment finding will set America on a dangerous path and put the health and welfare of every American at risk.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store