USDA cancels shipments to Tri-Cities food banks
SALEM, Va. (WJHL) – The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has canceled shipments of food headed to local food banks.
Pamela Irvine, the President and CEO of Feeding Southwest Virginia, said the food bank was informed that a shipment meant to be delivered between April and July was not coming.
'It was $513,000 worth of food that would have come to Feeding Southwest Virginia,' Irvine said. 'We were told that it was part of the process of looking at, you know, making some cuts in federal programs.'
$722K in food shipments to East Tennessee food bank canceled by U.S. Department of Agriculture
The cancelations are a result of the USDA's Commodities Credit Corporation being paused for a federal review.
Second Harvest Food Bank of Northeast Tennessee also confirmed that a shipment of 10 truckloads of food was canceled.
Irvine said the partnership Feeding Southwest Virginia has with the USDA is the most consistent way the food bank gets nutritious food.
'It's 31% of our food supply,' Irvine said. 'So, this food is extremely important, and the partnership is important to us. We're talking about eggs and milk and fresh fruits and vegetables that are extremely important.'
Despite the cancelations, Irvine said she does not want to cause panic.
'I want our neighbors not to panic, but we are concerned as we move forward to ensure that we will have a strong Farm Bill.'
The Farm Bill provides funding to the programs within the USDA. It is reauthorized by Congress every five years.
'They're in that continuing resolution through September. That is the priority. And then hopefully we'll get to the Farm Bill reauthorization.'
Feeding Southwest Virginia and Second Harvest Food Bank of Northeast Tennessee accept donations.
In a statement sent to News Channel 11, the USDA said:
'The Biden Administration inflated statutory programs with Commodity Credit Corporation dollars without any plans for long-term solutions, and even in 2024, used the pandemic as a reason to make funding announcements.
While the pandemic is over, USDA has not and will not lose focus on its core mission of strengthening food security, supporting agricultural markets, and ensuring access to nutritious foods. For example, last month, USDA released over half a billion in previously obligated funds for LFPA, LFPA for Tribes, and LFS to fulfill existing commitments and support ongoing local food purchases. Additionally, USDA recently announced $261 million in available fruits, vegetables, and tree nuts, made possible through Section 32 purchases. These foods go directly to food banks and other charitable organizations. States are eligible to receive products including tomatoes, grapes, pistachios, asparagus, apricots, strawberries, and peaches, among many others.
And while the Biden-era TEFAP slush fund was terminated, the program continues to operate uninterrupted, as originally intended by Congress, with more than $166 million spent in recent months to connect families with food.
The Department will continue to use its procurement authority to support producers and consumers where appropriate, and with 16 nutrition programs under its purview, ensure families continue to have access to affordable and abundant food.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UPI
22 minutes ago
- UPI
Army, Trump ready June 14th birthday parade with tanks, rocket launchers
President Donald Trump congratulates a cadet at the United States Military Academy graduation ceremony in Michie Stadium at West Point, New York, on May 24, and will review the Army's 250th birthday parade on June 14. Photo by John Angelillo/UPI | License Photo June 7 (UPI) -- The U.S. Army celebrates its 250th birthday on June 14th in the nation's capital, which coincides with President Donald Trump's 79th birthday, and will be marked by a parade that may include tanks, rocket launchers and more than 100 military vehicles. With the two birthdays occurring on the same day, the previously scheduled parade that was intended as a relatively small event at the National Mall in Washington, D.C., has grown in size and cost. Up to 300 soldiers and civilians, the U.S. Army Band and four cannons were initially slated to honor the Army's 250th birthday, with seating available for 120 attendees, The Washington Post reported. U.S. Army leaders last year sought a permit for the event, but Trump's election victory has changed its scope, while doubling as an unofficial celebration of the president's birthday. Axios reported the parade will live up to Trump's request for a showcase the U.S. miliatary's might, with dozens of tanks, rocket launchers, missiles and more than 100 other military aircraft and vehicles participating. About 6,600 Army troops will participate, and the Army is paying to house them in area hotels. The parade route has been moved to the northwest portion of Constitution Avenue and will include a flyover of F-22 fighter jets, World War II planes and Vietnam-era aircraft. The event is scheduled to start at 6:30 p.m. EDT at 23rd Street and continue along Constitution Avenue N.W. to 15th Street. Trump will review the parade on the Ellipse. The event has an estimated cost of nearly $45 million, including more than $10 million for road repairs after the heavy military equipment passes over. The parade's estimated cost has Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker, R-Miss., skeptical about its benefits. "I would have recommended against the parade," Wicker told an interviewer on Thursday, but the Department of Defense wants to use it as a recruiting tool. "On the other hand, [Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth] feels that it will be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for thousands of young Americans to see what a great opportunity it is to participate in a great military force," Wicker said. "So, we'll see."
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
A bond market meltdown might be inevitable
The recent surge in yields on long-dated U.S. Treasurys has generated concern in some circles. Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase, recently warned that the bond market is likely to crack as a result of spiraling government debt levels. 'I just don't know if it's going to be a crisis in six months or six years, and I'm hoping that we change both the trajectory of the debt and the ability of market makers to make markets,' he said. Others remain more sanguine and observe that interest rates have in fact normalized close to their pre-2008 global financial crisis levels. In the aftermath of the financial crisis, both real and nominal rates were stuck at unusually low levels for about a dozen years. But, since 2022, we have seen both policy and market rates edge toward their pre-crisis levels. With interest rates reverting back to their historical norms, is the current wariness surrounding the long end of the yield curve among key investors warranted? To evaluate the validity of such fears, it is worth reviewing recent U.S. fiscal history. During the past 45 years, the U.S. has had to deal periodically with the 'twin deficits' problem — the near-synchronous widening of the fiscal deficit and the current account deficit. In the past, bipartisan policy compromises pushed through by enlightened political leadership have helped America avoid a debt/currency crisis. In the early 1980s, the Reagan-era tax cuts contributed to a decline in U.S. government revenue that was not offset by cuts on the spending side and this led to a widening of the budget deficit. Meanwhile, the high interest rates associated with the Paul Volcker disinflation episode led to a sharp appreciation of the U.S. dollar and contributed to a deterioration of the trade and current account balances. This simultaneous deterioration of budget and current account balances gave rise to the twin-deficit hypothesis and highlighted the potential interconnectedness between fiscal deficits and trade deficits. Emergence of 'twin deficits' during the early 1980s generated significant concern in policymaking circles and led to concrete measures on both the fiscal front (in the form of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 and the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990) and on the exchange rate stabilization front (in the form of multilateral agreements such as the 1985 Plaza Accord and the 1987 Louvre Accord). In the Clinton era, further steps (such as the 1993 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, the reduction in military spending associated with the post-Cold War peace dividend and the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act) were undertaken to improve the U.S. fiscal outlook. During the fiscal 1998 through fiscal 2001 period, the federal government even ran budget surpluses. Concerns regarding the 'twin deficits' reemerged during the George W. Bush era as fiscal and current account imbalances worsened. Prior to the 2008 global financial crisis, economists worried that the spike in budget and trade deficits was serious enough to threaten a dollar crisis. Following the collapse of Lehman Brothers in September 2008, however, there was a dollar shortage abroad and the U.S. currency actually strengthened. Furthermore, as household consumption collapsed and personal saving rate rose, the U.S. current account markedly improved in the post- global financial crisis era. During the Obama era, the 2011 Budget Control Act and the artificially suppressed borrowing costs (via Fed's quantitative easing and near-zero interest rate policies) helped ease the fiscal burden. Over the past five years, both the budget and trade deficits have deteriorated sharply. Budget deficits have exceeded 5 percent of GDP since 2020 and projections indicate deficits will remain elevated, raising concerns about fiscal sustainability. Critically, government borrowing costs have risen sharply since 2022. Historian Niall Ferguson has suggested that America's superpower status may be threatened as the U.S. government now spends more on interest payments than on defense. Unlike prior episodes, the current cycle of deteriorating external and fiscal imbalances is significantly more worrisome as the country appears to be beset by institutional decay and political ineptitude. Domestic and foreign investors in U.S. Treasurys are starting to fret about the absence of fiscal rectitude even as government debt-to-GDP ratios reach levels last observed in 1946. Additionally, illogical and inconsistent policies on the trade and foreign policy front raise the prospect of a so-called 'moron premium' being applied to U.S. assets. Legislative threats to tax foreign capital is raising alarm and will likely push up the cost of borrowing even further. Such actions are also fueling concerns about the pre-eminent reserve currency status of the U.S. dollar. Any diminishment of dollar's exorbitant privilege will affect U.S. fiscal sustainability. Unlike the 1990s, there is currently no political consensus on reining in fiscal profligacy and restoring fiscal sanity. Harvard's Ken Rogoff recently noted: 'To be sure, this isn't just about Trump. Interest rates were already rising sharply during Biden's term. Had Democrats won the presidency and both houses of Congress in 2024, America's fiscal outlook would probably have been just as bleak. Until a crisis hits, there is little political will to act, and any leader who attempts to pursue fiscal consolidation runs the risk of being voted out of office.' The late great MIT economist Rudiger Dornbusch once quipped: 'In economics, things take longer to happen than you think they will, and then they happen faster than you thought they could.' Recent spikes in bond market volatility and long-dated Treasury yields suggest that the moment of fiscal reckoning may finally be approaching. Vivekanand Jayakumar, Ph.D., is an associate professor of economics at the University of Tampa.
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Trump stokes fear, confusion with pulled emergency abortion guidance
The Trump administration sowed confusion and fear among physicians with its move this past week to rescind Biden-era guidelines to hospitals that provide life-saving abortions. While the move doesn't change the law, doctors and reproductive-rights advocates fear it will have a chilling effect on health care workers in states with abortion bans, ultimately harming pregnant women. Earlier this past week, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced they would rescind guidance issued during the Biden administration, which reinforced to hospitals that under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA,) abortions qualify as stabilizing care in medical emergencies. Emergency rooms in states with abortion bans have been struggling since the 2022 overturning of Roe v. Wade to understand when they can legally provide emergency abortions. After President Trump pulled the Biden-era guidance seeking to clarify that question, emergency room doctors will experience 'more confusion' and 'more fear,' according to health and legal experts who spoke with The Hill. 'Clinicians are scared to provide basic medical care, and this care is clearly in line with medical ethics … medical standards of care, and they're being put in this situation where they can't win,' said Payal Shah, director of research, legal and advocacy at Physicians for Human Rights. Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, at least 13 states have enacted near-total abortion bans, according to data from the Guttmacher Institute. There are exceptions in these states when continuing a pregnancy poses a threat to the health or life of the mother. However, most of the language in state laws is unclear on how that determination is made, resulting in instances of emergency rooms denying care. Doctors in states like Idaho, Texas and Tennessee have filed lawsuits requesting that lawmakers clarify when an abortion is allowed to save the life of a pregnant person. The doctors and patients involved in the lawsuits argue that state laws do not adequately protect pregnant patients in emergencies. Many of these states have severe punishments for doctors who violate abortion bans, like steep fines and prison time. 'For clinicians, there is actually no safe way to navigate this in this moment, and ultimately, that's how these laws are designed,' Shah said. 'They're designed to cause chaos and confusion. They're often written in ways that don't use medical terminology.' Without clear guidance, pregnant women suffer and sometimes die, as ProPublica has reported. One striking example of this is the 2023 case of Kyleigh Thurman, a Texas woman who was repeatedly denied care for a nonviable pregnancy after days of experiencing bleeding and pain. Health care workers discovered that she had an ectopic pregnancy, which is when a fertilized egg implants and begins to grow outside of the uterus, usually in a fallopian tube. Ectopic pregnancies are never viable and are life-threatening if not treated properly. It wasn't until her OB/GYN 'pleaded to hospital staff that she be given care,' that the hospital administered a shot ending her pregnancy, according to a complaint filed by the Center for Reproductive Rights on behalf of Thurman. The shot came too late, and the ectopic pregnancy ruptured Thurman's right fallopian tube, which was then removed. 'If a patient is actively hemorrhaging or experiencing an ectopic pregnancy which is also life-threatening, doctors need that clear guidance that yes, EMTALA applied,' said Autumn Katz, associate director of U.S. litigation at the Center for Reproductive Rights. A federal investigation into Thurman's case found that the Texas hospital violated EMTALA, according to a recent letter from the CMS. 'I finally got some justice,' Thurman said in a statement. 'I hope this decision will do some good in encouraging hospitals to help women in situations like mine.' Hospitals that violate EMTALA are subject to heavy fines and, in some extreme cases, risk losing a portion of their Medicare and Medicaid hospital funding, according to the National Institutes of Health. Former President Biden leaned on the law to preserve access to emergency abortion across the country, leading to a legal fight with Idaho, which has a strict abortion ban. The Supreme Court last year dismissed the case, declining to rule on the merits of a politically charged case. The rescinding of these guidelines also means hospitals that violate the law will likely not be investigated as often as they were under previous administrations, according to Shah. That lack of punitive risk means that hospitals could be incentivized to deny life-saving care for patients. 'The standard of EMTALA is pretty high,' said Katherine Hempstead, senior policy adviser at Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. 'This kind of takes that layer of reassurance away, and it will make a lot of providers feel very vulnerable.'
