logo
Bret Baier on How He Interviews Donald Trump

Bret Baier on How He Interviews Donald Trump

Yahoo11-05-2025

Fox News is known for its opinion shows, but one of its most successful hosts is chief political anchor Bret Baier. And his influence is only growing.
Ratings are strong for his 'Special Report with Bret Baier,' and in recent months, he's interviewed top Trump officials like Elon Musk, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Vice President JD Vance, as well as top foreign leaders who want to make their case to his right-of-center audience.
Oh, and don't forget Baier's regular sit-downs with the president himself.
In an interview forthe Playbook Deep Dive podcast, Baier talked about the state of the media in Donald Trump's new Washington, and how to build trust with the public. He also discussed what it's like to play golf with Trump and why he takes off-the-record calls from the president.
'Any journalist would welcome just to know where his head is,' he said. 'Depending on where the day's going, it's a good thing to have a blueprint of what they're thinking about.'
Baier also talked about how he approaches interviews with the president — 'I tell them up front that this is going to be tough, but fair' — and what he's expecting on Trump's first foreign trip since returning to the presidency.This conversation has been edited for length and clarity by Deep Dive Producer Renee Klahr and Senior Producer Alex Keeney. You can listen to the full Playbook Deep Dive podcast interview here:
Trump not only has changed everything about how so much of government functions, but also the media, right? What has happened in your eyes to the press since the beginning of the Trump era?
Well, Trump One, there was a lot of focus on the Russia investigation for months and months. That dominated news cycle after news cycle. And it affected the way the president dealt with the press and the way the White House dealt with the press.
And I think that there was a push-and-pull there based on that story. Arguably we missed some other big things about Trump One. I always say that the story above the water is sort of like an iceberg that you could see and that everybody was focused on. But below the water, there's also a big iceberg that they're trying to change Washington in their own way. They weren't really that successful in the big change, which led to a loss in 2020. But after four years, I think Trump Two had four years to plan what they wanted to do. Which is why this shock and awe executive order blitz happened at the beginning. I think that they're getting about the lower part of the iceberg more day-to-day. We'll see if they're successful in what they want to try to do.
Do you think his relationship to the press has changed between the first administration and the second administration?
Yeah, he was open, but he wasn't as open as he is now as far as taking adversarial questions, taking questions pretty much every day. He's had so many Q&A sessions or sprays in the Oval Office. That could be 30, 40 minutes of a Q&A that's ahead of a news conference. And this White House, in that session, is making a ton of news by what he says. All of that is news throughout the day. It changes my show five or six times before I get to six o'clock.
I don't envy the folks putting together your rundown.
Yeah, we rip it up many times — right about five 'til six. But I think he's different. He's more comfortable in his skin. He's obviously doing bigger, bolder things. Not that they're very popular, as we're seeing. But he's holding to what he campaigned on and in his mind, doing what he wants to do, I think.
You mentioned that some of them aren't so popular. He's in a risky place with his trade policy right now. What do you think could be the downside to that? Do you think he's in danger?
Well, listen, people don't like looking at their 401ks if they're retiring and seeing it shrink dramatically. They don't like a slowdown in this quarter of GDP, a shrinkage of the economy for the first time in three years. They don't like it. And it obviously comes with a reverberation, like 'What's going on? Is this thing going to work out? Are these tariffs going to pan out?' I know the ultimate goal is to rebalance and shift the paradigm in the world, and bring manufacturing back to the U.S. That's a long time, and in the short term, there could be some pain.
Fox News is often known for some of its more conservative, opinionated voices. That is not the lane that you own. How do you navigate being under the Fox News umbrella, but sort of owning this lane that is more straight journalism?
Well, a couple of things. One, I've done it for 27 years and it's been the same umbrella and it has been the questions. A lot of people paint with a broad brush about our opinion shows. And I tell people to watch my show three times and drop me an email or a post on X or Instagram or TikTok and say what you think. So most people go through that, they come back and say it was fair on the news. When I took over for Brit Hume 16 years ago, which is hard to believe, he said three things: The show is not about you, the show is not about you and let the news drive the show. So that's where my goal is.
I don't know if it was because of Trump or if Trump was a byproduct or a symptom of it, but everything that you just said, a lot of reporters have started to do the opposite. It has become a lot about opinion or ideology. And look, there's a business model there, too.
And now we're in this environment where it's really hard for people to discern what is news, what is opinion, who to trust, who to listen to — that's been eroding. So how do you think we can try to carry that mantle and not just let that part of our business survive, but thrive?
Well, first of all, let me say that the opinion people do an amazing job of what they do. And they have opinions and they clearly express them. I do a different thing. I think if you build it, they will come. And that's really the mantra of our show.
We say, "We report, you decide." We'll tell you what this senator is saying. We'll tell you what Democrats, Independents, Republicans are saying. You make the decision how you feel about it. We're not going to tell you whether it's good, bad or indifferent. You make that decision. And story choice, how you go about that, all makes a difference in especially how Middle America views the media. Unfortunately, our business has taken a real hit and I think trust took a hit over the past eight years.
When it comes to President Trump and his expectations for an interview with Fox News and an interview with Bret Baier, how do you navigate that relationship? You've had some friendlier interviews, you've had more combative interviews. What is that relationship like?
Anytime I go into an interview, I tell them up front that this is going to be tough, but fair. He's going to have an opportunity to answer questions and say what he wants to say but I'm going to press him on things. Now you say friendly interview — the Super Bowl interview was a little different environment in that it was the Super Bowl, so I had to ask questions about the Super Bowl and other things, but at times push back about his thoughts about the economy and where it stands and what his policy was going to be. The interview before that he described as nasty, but he got over it.
He still takes your calls?
Yeah, he does. Listen, I think that off-the-record conversations with the president of the United States — any journalist would welcome just to know where his head is. Day-to-day, depending on where the day's going, it's a good thing to have a blueprint of what they're thinking about.
Speaking of off-the-record conversations, you've played golf with President Trump. How often has that happened?
It's a handful, maybe more than a handful of times. He's a good golfer and I played in college, so I think it fits.
Do you let him win? How does that work?
I try not to, I really do. But it's a great time to be able to not only play golf but at times ask questions about what he's thinking about X, Y, and Z and just be open to listening to that. I think anytime that you have access like that, any journalist should take it and welcome it.
You do have him lashing out at members of the media, some of your own colleagues and certainly with the AP. You were pretty outspoken in pushing back in defense of journalists when he banned the AP. How do you thread that needle? And do you think banning news outlets could potentially backfire and actually be a bad thing for this White House?
One hundred percent and I've said that both publicly and privately. I don't think it's a good thing. I don't think it's good for precedent. I do not think that you want any administration steering what news organizations editorially can do as far as their access in a pool. The AP has obviously been around since the beginning of time.It's not really a thread the needle thing. I think there are certain things where you have to weigh in and you have to say: 'This is what I believe.'
Who do you think is to blame for the lack of trust in the media, for the loss of trust in the media?
Well, the media. I mean, we went after collectively, and I say broadly, stories that didn't pan out and went overboard on covering some of it. And then at times wore opinion on their sleeves in news programs that really don't fit under the opinion umbrella. We talked about the opinion shows on Fox. There were times where I would watch what I thought was a news show on other channels that became very opinionated and pretty one-sided.
Do you think Trump had any role to play in that though, in the loss of trust?
Of course, yeah. He kind of broke the system and maybe that was part of his M.O., what he wanted to do. But Middle America didn't trust what they were getting from a lot of the media and you saw that even in polls of the election that suggested he was going to lose up until the last minute. You know, there were a lot of people that just didn't buy in.
Do you think that there's a danger now of over-correcting, too? You got some criticism for your interview with Vice President Kamala Harris. Some people said you were much harder on her than you were on Trump or on Elon Musk. What do you say to that?
Well, I'd say the environment. I think that the vice president was coming in ready to engage like that. I heard that from her folks afterwards that they were happy that that was the M.O.
You were responding to the vibes you were getting, you're saying?
Yeah, a little bit. And some of the answers were really interesting on items that I thought clearly they knew I was going to ask, about illegal immigration and the number of people coming across the border. And the answer was, 'Well, we need this comprehensive bill.' And I just went down methodically about, 'Well, couldn't you do by executive order a number of different things?' And she kept on coming back to the comprehensive bill and they've done all they can do. Obviously, that is not the case right now with the numbers we've seen on the southern border.
We're watching Eric and Donald Trump Jr. right now making a lot of business deals around the world. Is that something that the media should be looking at just as hard as what Hunter Biden was doing?
One hundred percent. And if you're going to play it one way, you've got to play it another way. And you've got to cover all of those things. I think there are real questions about how that works, what access looks like. And I don't think there is a lack of coverage or questions about that. But the Hunter Biden thing was another one of those moments where, "This is all fake. Do not cover anything about this computer or this laptop. It's Russian disinformation and here are 51 former intelligence officers who say it has all the markings of Russian disinformation." And then President Biden goes to the debate stage and says the intelligence community says it's Russian disinformation.
That was another one of those moments where Middle America said, "Wait, wait, wait. You just told me this is totally false. And yet now, a year later, it's true and you're doing front-page stories about it?" That's one of the trust things.
One thing that's saddened me in TV and media in general is conservatives tend to go on these programs and liberals tend to go on these programs, and I think that's just not healthy for a democracy. Is it hard for you to sometimes get Democrats on your show?
No. This week, we're going to have Sen. Bernie Sanders on "Special Report."
You were ready for that one.
I wasn't planning to book this because of this podcast but it just so happened he's coming on. He's come on numerous times. We did town halls with Democrats, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, a number of the primaries.
How important is it to see those in power run the gamut of media?
I think it's really important and it's great for democracy, it's great for voters. It's great to hear different questions from different points of view. And I think that's really good. I do this thing called 'Common Ground,' where I bring Democrats and Republicans together to talk about what they're working on, as opposed to what they are fighting about. We talk a little bit about what they're fighting about but we then eventually get to what they're working on together.
We started it about two years ago. And at first, people were saying, 'How are you going to get them to come together?' And the first ones, we did it and suddenly it was like a stone going down a mountain, kept on gathering and getting bigger and bigger and bigger. And now we take calls from ranking members and chairmen. And I've had strange bedfellows, [Rep. James] Comer and [Rep. Jamie] Raskin come on together. I think there's a way. to talk about things and we don't often do that because in the media obviously we're looking for the thing that drives people apart.
You're defying all kinds of expectations. People say TV news is dying, your ratings are going up. People say you need conflict to get ratings, you're finding common ground for ratings. Before I let you go, you're going to the Middle East with President Trump. What are your expectations for that? What are you hoping to learn from that trip?
Well, first of all, every time you go to a foreign land on a presidential trip, it is quite something to see. I was on the last Middle East trip in Saudi Arabia. All of these countries obviously roll out the red carpet, they know how President Trump operates and it's interesting to view.
This trip, I'm looking to talk to the leaders in those countries. We're working to line up each one, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and UAE. And then I'm looking to talk to the president at the end of the trip before he goes back to see exactly what he thinks about it and what he got out of it. I think a lot's going to come around on the Saudi trip. They have a lot on the table that's being negotiated right now. And my last time there, I interviewed the Crown Prince, MBS, and it was a big, big interview, his first interview with Western journalists and I think that that's going to bode well for this trip.
What do you think is at stake for President Trump here?
There are a lot of balls in the air. You know, there's Gaza, Hamas. There is Iran, the Houthis with this announcement that they're tired of fighting. That's a big, big deal. The biggest thing is if on Ukraine and Russia, somehow Putin shows up in Riyadh and there is a big deal for a longer cease-fire. So, think about all the foreign policy balls that are in the air, that's a good time to be on a trip.
Really quickly on Ukraine, President Trump promised on the campaign trail he was going to solve that, maybe even before Day One. It looks like he's getting impatient with it. He's threatened to walk away if the sides don't come together. What is at stake for him there?
A lot. The picture of the president with President Zelenskyy in the Vatican was a really iconic shot. But the other iconic shot, obviously, was Zelenskyy getting kicked out of the White House and he came to 'Special Report' right after that and did an interview. I don't think he would have done that had I not gone to Ukraine the year before and been on the front lines to do an interview about the war.
Listen, foreign policy takes time but for the president, there's a lot on the line because I think he thinks of himself as the biggest dealmaker in the world. And he may be, but some of these deals need to come together, not only on trade but on stopping wars.
And my final and perhaps most important question, Bret. You have been to the White House here in Washington, D.C. You have also been to what's been dubbed the Winter White House, Mar-a-Lago. Which one's better?
Ah, the weather's better in Mar-a-Lago but there's nothing like the White House. Being in the Oval Office, every time I used to walk in there and be positioned to ask a president and a world leader a question, I always pinched myself. Think about all the things that happened in this room, the decisions. It's a real honor to cover politics at a time when people pay attention to politics and when people are paying attention to the world.
Listen to this episode of Playbook Deep Dive on Apple, Spotify, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump Says Musk Will Face ‘Very Serious Consequences' If He Backs Democrats
Trump Says Musk Will Face ‘Very Serious Consequences' If He Backs Democrats

Epoch Times

time30 minutes ago

  • Epoch Times

Trump Says Musk Will Face ‘Very Serious Consequences' If He Backs Democrats

President Donald Trump on June 7 warned that Elon Musk could face 'serious consequences' if he decides to back Democratic political candidates in upcoming elections. While Musk campaigned for Trump's 2024 presidential run and was a key member in the Trump administration's fight against fraud and waste, the two were involved in a public spat this week, apparently fueled by their disagreements over Trump's budget priorities in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

Trump drops Nasa nominee Jared Isaacman, scrapping Elon Musk's pick
Trump drops Nasa nominee Jared Isaacman, scrapping Elon Musk's pick

Yahoo

time42 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump drops Nasa nominee Jared Isaacman, scrapping Elon Musk's pick

The White House has withdrawn as its nominee for Nasa administrator, abruptly yanking a close ally of Elon Musk from consideration to lead the space agency. Donald Trump said he would announce a new candidate soon. 'After a thorough review of prior associations, I am hereby withdrawing the nomination of Jared Isaacman to head Nasa,' the US president posted online. 'I will soon announce a new Nominee who will be mission aligned, and put America first in space.' Related: Drugs, marital advice and that black eye: key takeaways from Trump's Oval Office send-off for Elon Musk Isaacman, a billionaire private astronaut who had been Musk's pick to lead Nasa, was due next week for a much-delayed confirmation vote before the US Senate. His removal from consideration caught many in the space industry by surprise. Trump and the White House did not explain what led to the decision. Isaacman, whose removal was earlier reported by Semafor, said he was 'incredibly grateful' to Trump 'and all those who supported me throughout this journey'. 'I have gained a much deeper appreciation for the complexities of government and the weight our political leaders carry,' he posted. 'It may not always be obvious through the discourse and turbulence, but there are many competent, dedicated people who love this country and care deeply about the mission.' Isaacman's removal comes just days after Musk's official departure from the White House, where the SpaceX CEO's role as a 'special government employee' leading the so-called department of government efficiency (Doge) created turbulence for the administration and frustrated some of Trump's aides. Musk, according to a person familiar with his reaction, was disappointed by Isaacman's removal. 'It is rare to find someone so competent and good-hearted,' Musk wrote of Isaacman on X, responding to the news of the White House's decision. Musk did not immediately respond to a request for comment. It was unclear whom the administration might tap to replace Isaacman. One name being floated is the retired US air force Lt Gen Steven Kwast, an early advocate for the creation of the US space force and a Trump supporter, according to three people familiar with the discussions. Isaacman, the former CEO of the payment processor company Shift4, had broad space industry support but drew concerns from lawmakers over his ties to Musk and SpaceX, where he spent hundreds of millions of dollars as an early private spaceflight customer. The former nominee had donated to Democrats in prior elections. In his confirmation hearing in April, he sought to balance Nasa's existing moon-aligned space exploration strategy with pressure to shift the agency's focus on Mars, saying the US can plan for travel to both destinations. As a potential leader of Nasa's 18,000 employees, Isaacman faced a daunting task of implementing that decision to prioritize Mars, given that Nasa has spent years and billions of dollars trying to return its astronauts to the moon. On Friday, the space agency released new details of the Trump administration's 2026 budget plan that proposed killing dozens of space science programs and laying off thousands of employees, a controversial overhaul that space advocates and lawmakers described as devastating for the agency. The Montana Republican Tim Sheehy, a member of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation committee, posted that Isaacman had been 'a strong choice by President Trump to lead Nasa'. Related: Universe's mysteries may never be solved because of Trump's Nasa cuts, experts say 'I was proud to introduce Jared at his hearing and strongly oppose efforts to derail his nomination,' Sheehy said. Some scientists saw the nominee change as further destabilizing to Nasa as it faces dramatic budget cuts without a confirmed leader in place to navigate political turbulence between Congress, the White House and the space agency's workforce. 'So not having [Isaacman] as boss of Nasa is bad news for the agency,' Harvard-Smithsonian astronomer Jonathan McDowell posted. 'Maybe a good thing for Jared himself though, since being Nasa head right now is a bit of a Kobayashi Maru scenario,' McDowell added, referring to an exercise in the science fiction franchise Star Trek where cadets are placed in a no-win scenario. With Reuters

Trump vowed to help US farmers. These four say his policies are ‘wreaking havoc'
Trump vowed to help US farmers. These four say his policies are ‘wreaking havoc'

Yahoo

time42 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump vowed to help US farmers. These four say his policies are ‘wreaking havoc'

Donald Trump may have won the votes of the US's most farming-dependent counties by an average of 78% in the 2024 election. But the moves made by his administration in the past few months – imposing steep tariffs, immigration policies that target the migrant labor farmers rely on, and canceling a wide range of USDA programs – have left many farmers reeling. 'The policies of the Trump administration are wreaking havoc on family farmers. It's been terrible,' said John Bartman, a row crop farmer in Illinois. Bartman is owed thousands of dollars for sustainable practices he implemented on his row crop operation as part of the USDA's Climate-Smart program. And he's not the only one. Other farmers across the country are reporting that the Trump administration's policies have destroyed their markets by ending programs that help farmers sell their produce to local schools and food banks; implementing draconian immigration policies that destabilize the farm labor pool; and generally creating volatility that makes it hard for farmers to plan ahead. One group of farmers, the Northeast Organic Farming Association of New York, joined organizations like Earthjustice and the Natural Resources Defense Council in suing the USDA for removing department webpages focused on climate change, arguing that the move was unlawful and undermines farmers' ability to adapt and respond to climate threats. (On 13 May, the coalition declared a kind of victory when the government committed to restore the purged content; the government is set to provide more information about the restoration process on 11 June.) Some farmers, such as Bartman, loudly oppose Trump. 'I've met some Democrats who'll say: 'You farmers deserve this. You voted for him.' Well, I didn't vote for the guy. The programs that have been impacted the most are targeted towards farmers that care about the environment.' Others, such as those living near North Carolina farmer Patrick Brown, are experiencing 'buyer's remorse', said Brown, 'but they don't want to say it because they voted for the current administration'. No matter who they voted for, farmers across the country are living in the new reality created by the Trump administration's agricultural policies. The Guardian spoke to four farmers about what it's like trying to grow crops, feed people, and keep their operations afloat in 2025. John Bartman, Bartman FarmMarengo, Illinois I am a vegetable and grain farmer; we're mostly a row crop operation. My family has been farming in Illinois since 1846; we have the oldest continuous running vegetable stand in McHenry county. I farm 900 acres. I try to use the least amount of fertilizer and herbicides that I can. Three main policies have been impacting us. Number one is the cancellation of USAID. That's about a billion dollars worth of grain that the United States purchases from farmers like me, and they give it to third world nations who are hungry. To kill that program is a disaster. It's morally bankrupt, and it hurts farmers' bottom line. Another thing that's very pressing is the payment freezes to farmers from the USDA. I was involved in the Climate-Smart practices. We were paid to implement stewardship practices that the USDA has been preaching since the Dust Bowl. The added benefit is these practices combat climate change. That's what the current administration doesn't want anything to do with. I'm supposed to be paid close to $100 an acre. Then the current administration came in and put a freeze on everything. $100 an acre may not sound like much, but there are some years where we're happy if we make $20 an acre off of things. I have an operating loan that I haven't been able to pay off because I was counting on this money. I have rent that's due. I have seed costs. I have chemical costs. I try to explain to people, if I were a repair person, and I went to my local grade school and fixed their furnace, and in the meantime, a new school board was elected, I still deserve to be paid. I've signed a contract with the USDA. The full faith and credit of the United States is at risk, because if Uncle Sam will renege on a farmer, they'll renege on anybody. The third one is the tariff situation. China is and has been our number one export for soybeans; 100% of the soybeans that I grow are exported. During Trump's first administration, half of all the soybeans that China purchased were from the United States. By the end of his first administration, it was down to a quarter. Now Brazil has taken over our role as the number one importer of soybeans into China. From an environmental standpoint, that means more deforestation in the Amazon. Mexico purchases 40% of all the corn in the United States. And he wants to have a trade war with Mexico? Mexico can just as easily buy their grain from Argentina and Brazil. The USDA has also canceled a lot of contracts for food pantries and school districts to purchase from local farmers, and that's absolutely devastating. I was just in Springfield, Illinois, testifying and hearing testimony from other farmers. Many of them are first-generation farmers, and that program gave them an outlet for their produce. It's so sad listening to them saying, 'I finally had my dream of owning my own farm and making a living at it. Now I don't know what I'm going to do, because my market has dried up.' Shah Kazemi, Monterey MushroomsSanta Cruz county, California People don't recognize that we either have to import our labor, or import our food. We operate five farms right now: in California, Tennessee, Texas and Mexico. We have close to 2,000 employees. Our business has been totally dependent on migrant workers, just like all other ag businesses in this country. Without them, there is no food on anybody's table. In 1983 we acquired a farm in Loudon, Tennessee. At the time we didn't have one migrant worker in that plant. By the early 1990s we had about 20% migrant workers, and by the early 2000s we had 85%, because nobody wants to do that kind of work any more in this country. When you're bent over picking strawberries, cucumber, lettuce, zucchini, whatever the crop is – try to do that for eight hours. See how your back feels, how the rest of your body feels. Farming is hard, physical work. These are skilled workers, harvesting at a certain rate to stay productive; you have to know your trade. A skilled mushroom picker can pick about 75 to 80 pounds an hour, and some of them exceed 100 pounds an hour. A new picker comes in, their productivity is in the 20s, and it will take six to eight months to get them up to 50. So if you had to replace a guy that's picking 80 pounds an hour with people who are picking in the 20s, you need three or four of them. We have a lot of respect and admiration for these people. They're really underappreciated. I have a friend who is in the farming business. About a month ago, there was an Ice [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] raid in the area. The following day, most of his employees didn't show up. Even the people who have been here for a long time, they're listening to the news and hearing that people with green cards are being deported. The fear factor has been heightened significantly. That's what has happened with the new administration coming in. If we don't have enough workers, we cannot harvest our crops. And if you don't harvest, then it's all wasted. The uncertainty and erratic decision making creates volatility in the marketplace. And now we're concerned about where we're going to get future workers. What's going to happen a year from now, as some of these people get deported, or they feel so fearful they go back to their home country? Who's going to replace them? We need to have a program that lets people come in who can do the work, and then at the end of whatever the term is, they can go back home. They have a guest worker program in Canada that works significantly better than what we have here. Nobody pays any attention to the farmers, and we are the people who put food on the table every day. And the migrant workers, those are the hands that pick the crops that you eat. Josh Sneddon, Fox at the ForkMonee, Illinois I got into farming because I love to cook. When I was in New Jersey and I was getting my food from local farmers, ranchers and fishermen, the quality of the food was so much better that my spice cabinet became essentially salt and pepper, because the food was good enough [on its own]. I took my entrepreneurial spirit and applied it to my interest in building a local food system driven by higher-quality foods, greater accessibility, and a climate smart focus on our food system. Fox at the Fork is a 10-acre regenerative farm – we grow fruit and nut trees like pecans, persimmons and currants, while also stewarding approximately one acre of land intensively in annual vegetables. It's my fifth year in business. In prior farm bills and administrations, the USDA supported individuals like me who are considered 'beginning farmers'. That's one of their historically underserved categories. The USDA [formerly] created and reinforced programs that supported individuals who hadn't had the same opportunities – Bipoc, LGBTQ+, beginning, veteran farmers – to have an equitable shot at growing and establishing small-scale food businesses in their communities. Being considered a beginning farmer was part of the criteria that has helped me secure NRCS [Natural Resources Conservation Service] grants, one of them being a Conservation Stewardship Program contract. That's a five-year contract that recognizes all of the conservation practices we implemented. For us, that's about [protecting] native prairie; cover cropping; building bird boxes to bring back native kestrels and owls. Almost all federal grants require that some of the money spent is yours and is not reimbursed. So farmers have a stake in the game; it's not just the government giving out corn and soy subsidies. The other program that really helped our farm last year [that has been canceled under the current administration] is the LFPA, the Local Food Purchase Assistance Cooperative Agreement Program. It was getting up to $25m [in Illinois] that had been obligated to the state for food distribution organizations like food banks, who provide food to the community and pay a fair market value to us farmers. I also have a Reap contract – the Rural Energy for America Program – which is another program that faced direct cuts. At the end of last year, I spent approximately $79,000 to install solar, having already received approval and signed paperwork. That grant is a 25% reimbursement through the USDA reap, which is for me, $19,784. I'm still waiting for that. Not receiving that $19,784 has slowed what investments I'm going to make for the year. It's hard to predict the long-term impacts, but the short-term impact is more anxiety, fewer investments on the farm, and likely greater effort trying to get my food placed in the community at a fair market price. Patrick Brown, Brown Family FarmsWarren county, North Carolina I'm a fourth-generation row crop farmer. My home farm is about 165 acres. I also grow industrial hemp fiber and produce – watermelons, leafy greens, tomatoes, sweet corn. We're an impoverished community, and we don't have access to a lot of food, so I try to get healthy options to children especially. We were participants for the past two years in a USDA project – which has just gotten terminated – providing fresh food to local schools. We also created a non-profit to help create a path for young kids that want to become farmers. And I also am a director of a non-profit called Nature for Justice, and we were awarded a USDA Climate-Smart contract to help farmers with conservation practices. All my projects that were funded by the federal government have been terminated during the current administration. It's caused us to pivot. We're so used to not having anything – as a minority farmer, that's the way things have always been. But when you sign a government contract, you feel some sense of, 'this can't be taken away.' I was doing two projects: one for cover crops and nutrient management, and the other one to plant trees to help with erosion and chemical drift, and to create habitat for wildlife. We did all this work and invested all this money, all for them to say, as of 29 January, the project is no longer in place. We were expecting to get over $65,000 this year from work we did in 2024. They claim that I will eventually get the money, but who knows how long that will be held up? Plus, the announcements made during this administration through the secretary of agriculture are not getting down to the rural community offices that represent small farmers. It's almost as if things are announced on social media, and then the offices hear about it. And our local NRCS offices and our Farm Service Agency offices are more understaffed than they've been in 20 years. The technical assistance is non-existent. The main thing we need right now is for our local legislators to speak up for us. A lot of them are being quiet. But we need to advocate against the wrongdoing that is being done to farmers.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store