No federal grants spells bad news for the Mass. local food ecosystem
Two major programs in Massachusetts, Northeast Food for Schools (NFS) and the Local Food Purchase Assistance Cooperative Agreement Program, have been notified by the US Department of Agriculture that they will not be receiving federal funds this year. Last year, the programs provided about
Get The Gavel
A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr.
Enter Email
Sign Up
Harrison Bardwell of Bardwell Farms in Hatfield told the crowd he estimates he'll lose $200,000 in revenue over the next year, or up to 30 percent of his sales, as a result of the funding cuts.
Advertisement
Some of his produce would have ended up in schools across Massachusetts.
Jason Yeagle, the nutrition director at Fitchburg's Montachusett Regional Vocational Technical School, known as Monty Tech, has used NFS funds to purchase locally grown fruits and vegetables. 'It was a bonus that I could source higher-quality, more-local produce,' says Yeagle about the NFS funds.
Advertisement
The kids at Monty Tech are not going without vegetables because of the cuts, but the produce they eat will be less diverse and from farther away. If teaching kids to eat healthier is a goal for our schools, then providing lower-quality produce is not the way to get there, Yeagle says.
Shon Rainford, who directs the Worcester Food Hub, says his organization distributed roughly $3 million of NFS-funded locally grown produce last year. This year, he says, 'we are going to be less busy,' and he's concerned about the effects on farmers and the people who rely on the Hub for affordable food.
New England farms are small. Eating 'local' often means within the radius of a few towns, instead of
Small farms are also more vulnerable to volatility.
'We do our planning in the winter. Everything has been ordered. A lot has been paid for,' says Bardwell. He worries about paying his employees, to whom he promised jobs and good wages, if he cannot find new markets for his produce.
Making matters worse, the cuts in federal funding came just months after
'As a farmer, I want to support and feed the community. Especially those families in need, with young students that are going to school and can't afford a meal from home,' Bardwell said to the hundreds of fellow community members who convened at Hadley town hall.
Advertisement
Representative Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, who also spoke at the protest forum, criticized the Trump administration for its shortsightedness. 'They have frozen critical funds. They have broken legal contracts. They're shutting down USDA offices that serve our communities,' he said. 'Farmers are the backbone of America. They are feeding the future, and in a very real sense, food security is national security.'
Applause and the sound of cowbells filled every pause he took.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Vox
4 hours ago
- Vox
The big reason why Republicans should worry about an angry Elon Musk
In the November 2026 midterm elections, Elon Musk could have much more impact for much less money. Allison Robbert/AFP via Getty Images How the Musk-Trump blowup ends, nobody knows. Most commentary gives President Donald Trump the advantage. But Elon Musk's willingness to spend his fortune on elections gives him one distinct advantage — the ability to drive a brittle party system into chaos and loosen Trump's hold on it. Thus far, Musk has raised two electoral threats. First, his opposition to Trump's One Big, Beautiful Bill has raised the specter of his funding primary challenges against Republicans who vote to support the legislation. Second, he has raised the possibility of starting a new political party. There are limits to how much Musk can actually reshape the political landscape — but the underlying conditions of our politics make it uniquely vulnerable to disruption. The threat of Musk-funded primaries might ring a little hollow. Trump will almost certainly still be beloved by core Republican voters in 2026. Musk can fund primary challengers, but in a low-information, low-turnout environment of mostly Trump-loving loyal partisans, he is unlikely to succeed. However, in the November 2026 midterm elections, Musk could have much more impact for much less money. All he needs to do is fund a few spoiler third-party candidates in a few key swing states and districts. In so doing, he would exploit the vulnerability that has been hiding in plain sight for a while — the wafer-thin closeness of national elections. The Logoff The email you need to stay informed about Trump — without letting the news take over your life, from senior editor Patrick Reis. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. In a straight-up battle for the soul of the Republican Party, Trump wins hands down. Not even close. Trump has been the party's leader and cult of personality for a decade. But in a battle for the balance of power, Musk might hold the cards. Currently, the US political system is 'calcified.' That's how the political scientists John Sides, Chris Tausanovitch, and Lynn Vavreck described it in their 2022 book, The Bitter End: The 2020 Presidential Campaign and the Challenge to American Democracy. Partisans keep voting for their side, seeing only the reality that makes them the heroes; events may change, but minds don't. In a 48-48 country, that means little opportunity for either party to make big gains. It also means a small disruption could have massive implications. Elon Musk doesn't have a winning coalition — but he may not need one to hurt Trump Let's imagine, for a moment, that Musk is serious about starting a new political party and running candidates. He will quickly find that despite his X poll, a party that 'actually represents the 80 percent in the middle' is a fantasy. That mythical center? Being generous here, that's maybe 15 percent of politically checked-out Americans. Realistically, the coalition for Musk's politics — techno-libertarian-futurist, anti-system, very online, Axe-level bro-vibes — would be small. But even so, a Musk-powered independent party — call it the 'Colonize Mars' Party — would almost certainly attract exactly the voters completely disenchanted with both parties, mostly the disillusioned young men who went to Trump in the 2024 election. Imagine Musk funds his Colonize Mars Party in every competitive race, recruiting energetic candidates. He gives disenchanted voters a chance to flip off the system: Vote for us, and you can throw the entire Washington establishment into a panic! Practically, not many seats in the midterms will be up for grabs. Realistically, about 40 or so House seats will be genuine swing seats. In the Senate, there are realistically only about seven competitive races. But that means a small party of disruption could multiply the targeted impact of a precision blast with a well-chosen 5 percent of the electorate in less than 10 percent of the seats. Quite a payoff. The short-term effect would be to help Democrats. Musk used to be a Democrat, so this is not so strange. If Musk and his tech allies care about immigration, trade, and investment in domestic science, supporting Democrats may make more sense. And if Musk mostly cares about disruption and sending Trump spiraling, this is how he would do it. Musk is an engineer at heart. His successes have emerged from him examining existing systems, finding their weak points, and asking, What if we do something totally different? From an engineer's perspective, the American political system has a unique vulnerability. Every election hangs on a narrow margin. The balance of power is tenuous. Since 1992, we've been in an extended period in which partisan control of the White House, Senate, and the House has continually oscillated between parties. National electoral margins remain wickedly tight (we haven't had a landslide national election since 1984). And as elections come to depend on fewer and fewer swing states and districts, a targeted strike on these pivotal elections could completely upend the system. A perfectly balanced and completely unstable system It's a system ripe for disruption. So why has nobody disrupted it? First, it takes money — and Musk has a lot of it. Money has its limits — Musk's claim that his money helped Trump win the election is dubious. Our elections are already saturated with money. In an era of high partisan loyalty, the vast majority of voters have made up their minds before the candidate is even announced. Most money is wasted. It hits decreasing marginal returns fast. The very thing that makes our politics feel so stuck is exactly what makes it so susceptible to Musk's threat. But where money can make a difference is in reaching angry voters disenchanted with both parties with a protest option. Money buys awareness more than anything else. For $300 million (roughly what Musk spent in 2024), a billionaire could have leverage in some close elections. For $3 billion (about 1 percent of Musk's fortune) the chance of success goes up considerably. Second, disruption is possible when there are enough voters who are indifferent to the final outcome. The reason Ross Perot did so well in 1992? Enough voters saw no difference between the parties that they felt fine casting a protest vote. Election after election, we've gone through the same pattern. Throw out the old bums, bring in the new bums — even if 90-plus percent of the electorate votes for the same bums, year in and year out. But in a 48-48 country, with only a few competitive states and districts, a rounding-error shift of 10,000 votes across a few states (far fewer than a typical Taylor Swift concert) can bestow full control of the government. Think of elections as anti-incumbent roulette. The system is indeed 'calcified,' as Sides, Tausanovitch, and Vavreck convincingly argue. Calcified can mean immovable. But it can also mean brittle. Indeed, the very thing that makes our politics feel so stuck is exactly what makes it so susceptible to Musk's threat.
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Here's How Much the Government Spends on Stroking Trump's Ego
Grandiose efforts to boost Donald Trump's ego are costing America a fortune. Trump's second term is still shy of the six-month mark, but already, millions have been spent to flatter him. Just three stunts to fluff the president have already totaled upward of a billion dollars, reported Rolling Stone Friday. They include a Bastille Day–inspired military parade to celebrate Trump's birthday, the repurposing of an ultraluxury jumbo jet from Qatar for Air Force One (which Trump is setting up so no one else can use it after he leaves the White House), and a TV ad campaign featuring Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem zealously thanking the president (in the background, the Trump campaign's top vendor is quietly cashing in on the DHS-funded ad spot). And on Friday, Trump announced that the White House would be undergoing a massive renovation by way of adding a ballroom to the symbol of American democracy. (Trump has previously promised to pay for the $100 million expansion himself, but only time will tell if the convicted fraudster will actually follow through or take the funds from public coffers.) But the glitz and glam is about more than simply placating the president, according to political scientists. Instead, the whole spectacle is attached to Trump's authoritarian leanings. 'They have to do with a president who needs to be not only at the center of a media circus, but who needs to be told ritualistically over and over how great he is,' Anthony DiMaggio, author of Rising Fascism in America: It Can Happen Here, told Rolling Stone. 'What's interesting to me about this, as a political scientist, is that it's not just a personality-based thing or a defect. It's a broader pattern that has to do with behaviors that are overlapping with authoritarian politics and ideology.' But the itch doesn't stop at gift receiving. Trump's second-term quest to nix Washington's so-called 'deep state' and replace it with an army of MAGA yes-men has so far been successful. At Cabinet meetings and press briefings, officials from across the political landscape are quick to puff up the president. The problem became particularly evident in April, when Trump wheeled out his 'Liberation Day' tariff plan using figures that nobody in his vicinity had dared to notify him were founded on bad math. The result is a Trumpian loyalty more akin to a religion than a political ideology: Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has pleaded with Congress to trust the president's economic will. Cabinet meetings begin with a round-robin of gushing for Trump's performance. The White House has spent money producing propaganda that does little more than thank Trump for his agenda. Even congressional Republicans, who are supposed to be detached from Trump's influence, have repeatedly kowtowed to the president's will. The sycophantic displays between Trump and his advisers give off 'Dear Leader' vibes, similar to 'what you would see with Kim Jong Un or [Vladimir] Putin,' Democracy Defenders Fund's Virginia Canter told Rolling Stone, noting that the president treats his Cabinet members as his 'personal staff.' 'They're there to stroke his ego,' Canter said.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Judge orders Trump to restore AmeriCorps programs in two dozen states
A federal judge ordered the Trump administration on Thursday to restore AmeriCorps-funded programs in Washington, D.C., and 24 Democratic-led states as their lawsuit proceeds over recent cuts. U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman ruled the states were likely to succeed in their claims that federal law required AmeriCorps to provide a notice-and-comment period before making the significant reductions. 'As the litigation proceeds, the States cannot simply pause their current and forthcoming disaster response efforts,' wrote Boardman, an appointee of former President Obama who serves in Maryland. 'They will have to fill this void with their own resources,' she continued. 'The costs they will incur cannot be recovered at the end of this litigation.' Created in 1993, AmeriCorps is a federal agency focused on national service that provides stipends to volunteers who respond to various local, state and national challenges. The Trump administration in April looked to make drastic reductions at AmeriCorps as the Department of Government Efficiency implanted itself across the federal bureaucracy to implement spending cuts. AmeriCorps reduced its workforce from more than 700 to 116 employees and forced the exit of roughly 30,000 volunteers, the judge noted. AmeriCorps also terminated 1,031 grants, reflecting about half of its total grant funding. Boardman's order requires the administration to reinstate the terminated grants in the states that sued and restore members of the National Civilian Community Corps to their posts. But the judge declined to reinstate the laid off employees, saying the states hadn't shown they have the legal right to sue over that aspect. 'Any harm the defendants might face if the agency actions are enjoined pales in comparison to the concrete harms that the States and the communities served by AmeriCorps programs have suffered and will continue to suffer,' Boardman wrote. Led by Maryland, the states that sued comprise Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin. Washington, D.C., also was part of the suit. Beyond arguing no notice and comment was required, the Trump administration argued the states lack legal standing, do not challenge final agency actions and that their claims must be brought before a court that has exclusive jurisdiction over certain government contract lawsuits. The Hill has reached out to AmeriCorps for comment. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
