
How milk is getting caught in the middle of Trump's policy agenda
President Donald Trump's moves in Washington are being felt in the milking barns of an upstate New York dairy farm. There, AJ Wormuth said he's already seeing costs go up from Trump's tariffs while the threat of a wider trade war is driving down the price he gets paid for his cows' milk.
'We're getting a double whammy — we're getting lower prices and higher costs,' said Wormuth, who has 3,600 dairy cattle at his farm, Half Full Diary.
While none of Trump's policies have specifically targeted the milk industry, dairy farmers say they have been caught in the fray on a number of fronts. Their stories illustrate the fast pace of change across the federal government at the beginning of the second Trump administration, as well as the intersection of two policy areas — immigration and the economy — where voters are giving Trump markedly different grades so far.
Tariffs are increasing costs for farmers while market jitters over falling U.S. dairy sales overseas are driving down milk prices. Meanwhile, Trump's moves to step up deportations could affect the industry's workforce, since immigrants are estimated to make up about half of dairy workers. And concerns are growing about the risk of bird flu, which has been spreading among dairy cattle for the past year.
'There's just so much uncertainty about everything right now,' said Annie Watson, who has 70 cattle on an organic dairy farm in Maine. 'As dairy farmers, we work in three-year cycles — from when a calf is born on our farms until it becomes a milking cow. Nothing happens quickly on our dairy farms. So to have policies put forth that take effect very, very quickly, it can often be challenging for those of us that work in this sort of cycle.'
Trade war tensions
Trump has said he plans to announce sweeping tariffs on goods from across the globe on April 2, and he has already put additional 20% tariffs on imports from China along with a 25% tariff on all imports of automobiles, steel and aluminum. The president has threatened, but so far delayed, a 25% tariff on goods from Mexico and Canada.
In response to Trump's tariff moves, other countries have vowed to retaliate with their own tariffs on American-made products. China and the European Union have already announced tariffs on certain U.S. goods, including dairy products.
Those retaliatory tariffs could drive down global demand for U.S. dairy, leading to an oversupply of milk in the U.S. That would create a supply and demand imbalance, driving down the price farmers get for their milk, though the price American shoppers pay for dairy products in the grocery store might not budge much. That's because a number of factors go into setting the price of finished dairy products, such as transportation, marketing and labor costs.
'Anything that is disrupting the flow of trade is obviously concerning,' said Jaime Castaneda, the executive vice president for policy and strategy at the National Milk Producers Federation. 'I think that the farm community is very concerned about broad tariff applications, as opposed to more targeted and more focused tariffs.'
Concern over the tariffs has already contributed to a significant drop in the price farmers are paid for their milk since Trump came into office, Castaneda said.
But there are potential upsides for dairy farmers if Trump's trade war is ultimately able to reduce trade barriers to other countries like Canada and European Union nations, which have placed restrictions on American dairy products, said Castaneda.
Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said last week that her department was looking into ways to 'potentially mitigate any economic catastrophes that could happen to some of our farmers' as a result of Trump's tariffs. During Trump's first term, the federal government made direct payments to farmers who lost sales from retaliatory tariffs China put on American agriculture products.
Rising costs, funding cuts
In Maine, Watson said she is worried about the cost of her feed increasing if Trump goes through with a threat to put a 25% tariff on all Canadian imports. Being relatively close to the Canadian border, most of her feed comes from Canada, and she said the tariffs could add $1,200 a month to her grain bill.
'It would be easier to bear if we were not in a situation where many of our organic dairy farmers have been financially underwater for many years due to market factors,' said Watson, who is also president of the Maine Dairy Association. 'Many farmers, I think, will just try to put their heads down and bear it without accruing too much more debt, but so many of us are behind on our bills already.'
Higher costs are also a concern for Wormuth. He said he started a barn renovation sooner than planned after he was told the price for the new metal stalls would be going up, from $85,000 to $106,000, once Trump's 25% tariff on steel and aluminum went into effect earlier this month.
'We can't just go to the market and raise our prices because all of our costs are higher, so we are kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place,' he said.
At the same time, dairy farmers have been impacted by cuts and funding freezes at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The agency cut funding for a program that helps schools and food banks buy products from local farmers, like lunch milk from nearby dairy farms. Other farmers have been left waiting to get reimbursed for millions of dollars in grant funding previously awarded to them for conservation projects on their farms, like installing solar panels on barn rooftops.
Immigration fears
Dairy farms are heavily reliant on labor from immigrants, who work at dairies that produce 79% of America's milk, according to the National Milk Producers Federation. Work on dairy farms can involve early hours, long days and weekend shifts year-round in harsh weather.
'It is very labor-intensive, hands-on work. It's not glamorous. It's hard work, it's valuable work, but it is absolutely something that we as a society have moved away from valuing,' said Watson. 'So we rely on immigrant labor. They come ready to work and they do tremendous work on our farms. The idea of losing that workforce, it could be devastating for the dairy industry.'
For dairy workers who aren't born in the U.S., it can be difficult to get the proper work authorization because there isn't a specific visa available for dairy workers, unlike other agricultural industries in which employers can bring workers to the U.S. on temporary visas during the harvest season.
Dairy workers don't qualify for those temporary agriculture worker visas because they work year-round. Members of Congress and the dairy industry have tried and failed multiple times over the past two decades to create a visa program for dairy workers.
That's left dairy farmers worried their workers could get swept up in the Trump administration's stepped-up deportation efforts. The National Milk Producers Federation estimates that if the U.S. dairy industry lost its foreign-born workforce, it would nearly double retail milk prices and cost the total U.S. economy more than $32 billion.
One dairy farmer, who didn't want to publicly share his name for fear of retaliation against his workforce, said they are hearing a lot of fear among their workers, who are trying to avoid going out into public and preparing their families for the possibility that they get deported.
'They see the ads on TV saying if you're not here legally, you should leave, and those types of things just creates a lot of fear and anxiety,' the farmer said. 'Our guys are like family. They've been here with us a long time, they're important to us, but you can tell that they're scared and just unsure what's going to happen.'
Bird flu spread
The uncertainty around tariffs and immigration comes as the industry is also closely watching the spread of avian flu in dairy cattle over the past year.
So far, the fatality rate of infected cows has been low and most are able to recover in a few weeks. But the infections do lead to a temporary decrease in milk production that can reduce farmers' income.
'The last thing we need right now, on top of all the volatility from the tariffs and the immigration threat and those things, would be to lose a drop in production for bird flu,' said Wormuth, who worries that bird flu could start to spread among New York dairy cattle when birds start migrating back north in the spring.
The Trump administration has yet to make any significant changes to the federal response to avian flu in dairy cattle. Under the Biden administration, the USDA provided funding to dairy farms to help reduce the spread of the virus, cover veterinary costs and compensate farmers who lost milk because of sick cows.
The USDA started a voluntary milk-testing program in December, during the final days of the Biden administration, but some states have been slow to put the system in place. Public and animal health experts have said widespread testing is critical to containing virus cases that might otherwise go undetected, giving the variants more opportunities to spread to animals and humans.
The dairy industry is encouraging the Trump administration to continue the development of a vaccine against avian flu for dairy cattle, said Castaneda. But he is concerned some countries may not accept milk from vaccinated cows, even though pasteurization has been shown to kill the virus — creating one more element of uncertainty about what's ahead for dairy farmers.
'I don't think that a vaccine should be mandatory, but having a vaccine available, that's something that we are certainly looking to have as another tool to deal with this issue,' said Castaneda. 'This is our first time we have encountered this. We don't know if it's going to be a recurring issue or a one-time thing.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Telegraph
35 minutes ago
- Telegraph
White House tries to water down Russia sanctions
Donald Trump is pressuring a US senator to weaken a Bill that would impose sweeping sanctions on Russia. White House officials hoping to mend relations with Moscow have been quietly contacting senator Lindsey Graham's office urging him to water down his Bill, which aims to cripple Vladimir Putin with huge sanctions. The Bill, backed by nearly the entire Senate, would impose 500 per cent tariffs on countries that continue to buy Russian oil and gas, which bankrolls Putin's war effort. Officials have been demanding the Bill include waivers that would allow Mr Trump to choose who or what was sanctioned, congressional aides told the Wall Street Journal. Other attempts to weaken the legislation include softening the language, replacing 'shall' with 'may' to avoid making the reprimands mandatory. Removing the mandatory nature of the sanctions would render the Bill effectively toothless and do little to hamper Putin's war machine, aides fear. 'We're moving ahead and the White House is included in our conversations,' Richard Blumenthal, senator and lead Democratic co-sponsor of the Bill, told the paper. Russia's war effort is funded by fossil-fuel exports. Moscow has adapted to existing sanctions with relative ease, turning to North Korea and China for support. Fearing the impact on pump prices, Joe Biden, former president, was unwilling to crack down on Russian energy exports. Mr Trump, has threatened to impose sanctions on Ukraine, as well as Russia, if the two sides fail to reach a peace agreement. 'Any sanction package must provide complete flexibility for the president to continue to pursue his desired foreign policy,' a White House official said. They added that the constitution 'vests the president with the authority to conduct diplomacy with foreign nations'. Speaking in the Oval Office alongside Friedrich Merz, German chancellor, on Thursday, the US president said that the Bill should not move forward without his express approval. 'They'll be guided by me. That's how it's supposed to be,' he told reporters. 'They're waiting for me to decide on what to do.' Last week, Mr Graham and Mr Blumenthal visited Ukraine where they applauded the country's drone attack that destroyed 40 aircraft deep inside Russian territory. However, they were ridiculed and accused of 'stirring up' the conflict by key allies of Mr Trump, including Steve Bannon. 'By trying to engage Putin – by being friendly and enticing – it's become painfully clear [Putin's] not interested in ending this war,' Mr Graham said earlier this week. '[Putin] needs to see and hear that message as well from us, from the American people,' said Mr Blumenthal. Both said that failing to act now could pull the US deeper into the conflict later. If Putin isn't stopped in Ukraine, Mr Blumenthal said, Nato treaty obligations could compel US troops into battle. Earlier this week, Russian negotiators tabled a long memorandum, resembling a complete capitulation for Ukraine, in a second round of direct talks with Kyiv in Istanbul. They demanded Ukraine must withdraw its troops from four eastern regions that Russia only partially occupies and that international recognition of Russian sovereignty over them and Crimea must be granted.


Reuters
38 minutes ago
- Reuters
US Supreme Court keeps DOGE records blocked in watchdog group's challenge
June 6 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court extended on Friday its block on judicial orders requiring the Department of Government Efficiency to turn over records to a government watchdog group that sought details on the entity established by President Donald Trump and previously spearheaded by his billionaire former adviser Elon Musk. The court put on hold Washington-based U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper's orders for DOGE to respond to requests by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington for information about its operations. The judge concluded that DOGE likely is a government agency covered by the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The brief, unsigned order said that portions of one of the judge's decisions "are not appropriately tailored" and that "separation of powers concerns counsel judicial deference and restraint in the context of discovery regarding internal Executive Branch communications." The court sent the case back to a lower appeals court to narrow the judge's directives. The court's three liberal justices - Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson - dissented from Friday's decision. In a separate case, the Supreme Court on Friday permitted DOGE broad access to personal information on millions of Americans in Social Security Administration data systems while a legal challenge plays out. DOGE has played a central role in Trump's efforts to downsize and reshape the U.S. government including by slashing the federal workforce and dismantling certain agencies. The watchdog group, called CREW, said its intention was to shed light on what it called DOGE's secretive structure and operations. Musk formally ended his government work on May 30 and his once-close relationship with Trump has since unraveled publicly, a split that followed Musk's recent attacks on the president's sweeping tax and spending bill and played out dramatically on social media on Thursday. CREW sued to obtain an array of records from DOGE through the FOIA statute, a law that allows the public to seek access to records produced by government agencies. It sought information on DOGE's activities over its role in the mass firings and cuts to federal programs pursued since the Republican president returned to office in January. The Trump administration contends that DOGE is an advisory entity and not subject to FOIA. In response, CREW sought information to determine whether DOGE is subject to FOIA because it wields the kind of authority of an agency independent of the president. Cooper ruled in April that DOGE must turn over some records sought by CREW and that the group was entitled to question DOGE official Amy Gleason at a deposition. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit declined on May 14 to put Cooper's order on hold. The administration urged the Supreme Court to act, saying that the judge's orders intruded on the powers of the executive branch and compromised the ability of a wide array of advisers to provide candid and confidential advice to the president. CREW told the justices that siding with the administration in the dispute would give the president "free reign" to create new entities that would "functionally wield substantial independent authority but are exempt from critical transparency laws." In one of his decisions, Cooper said DOGE's operations have been marked by "unusual secrecy." In another, the judge said that the language of Trump's executive orders concerning DOGE suggests that it is "exercising substantial independent authority."


The Guardian
43 minutes ago
- The Guardian
US supreme court rules Doge can access personal records during legal challenge
The US supreme court on Friday permitted the so-called 'department of government efficiency' (Doge), a key player in Donald Trump's drive to slash the federal workforce, broad access to the personal information of millions of Americans in Social Security Administration data systems while a legal challenge plays out. At the request of the justice department, the justices put on hold Maryland-based US district judge Ellen Hollander's order that had largely blocked Doge's access to 'personally identifiable information' in data such as medical and financial records while litigation proceeds in a lower court. Hollander found that allowing Doge unfettered access likely would violate a federal privacy law. The court's brief, unsigned order did not provide a rationale for siding with Doge. The court has a 6-3 conservative majority. Its three liberal justices dissented. Doge swept through federal agencies as part of the Republican president's effort, spearheaded by billionaire Elon Musk, to eliminate federal jobs, downsize and reshape the US government and root out what they see as wasteful spending. Musk formally ended his government work on 30 May. Two labor unions and an advocacy group sued to stop Doge from accessing sensitive data at the SSA, including social security numbers, bank account data, tax information, earnings history and immigration records. The agency is a major provider of government benefits, sending checks each month to more than 70 million recipients, including retirees and disabled Americans. In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs argued that the SSA had been 'ransacked' and that Doge members had been installed without proper vetting or training and had demanded access to some of the agency's most sensitive data systems. Hollander in a 17 April ruling found that Doge had failed to explain why its stated mission required 'unprecedented, unfettered access to virtually SSA's entire data systems'. 'For some 90 years, SSA has been guided by the foundational principle of an expectation of privacy with respect to its records,' Hollander wrote. 'This case exposes a wide fissure in the foundation.' Hollander issued a preliminary injunction that prohibited Doge staffers and anyone working with them from accessing data containing personal information, with narrow exceptions. The judge's ruling did allow Doge affiliates to access data that had been stripped of private information as long as those seeking access had gone through the proper training and passed background checks. Hollander also ordered Doge affiliates to 'disgorge and delete' any personal information already in their possession. Based in Richmond, Virginia, the fourth US circuit court of appeals in a 9-6 vote declined on 30 April to pause Hollander's block on Doge's unlimited access to SSA records. Justice department lawyers in their supreme court filing characterized Hollander's order as judicial overreach. 'The district court is forcing the executive branch to stop employees charged with modernizing government information systems from accessing the data in those systems because, in the court's judgment, those employees do not 'need' such access,' they wrote. The six dissenting judges wrote that the case should have been treated the same as one in which a fourth circuit panel ruled 2-1 to allow Doge to access data at the US treasury and education departments and the office of personnel management. In a concurring opinion, seven judges who ruled against Doge wrote that the case involving social security data was 'substantially stronger' with 'vastly greater stakes', citing 'detailed and profoundly sensitive Social Security records', such as family court and school records of children, mental health treatment records and credit card information.