Latest news with #KansasFarmersUnion
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Small Farmers Are Struggling With Trumpian Chaos—and Bracing for More
Fielding phone calls from concerned growers has become a commonplace occurrence for Nick Levendofsky, the executive director of the Kansas Farmers Union. The upheaval in the U.S. Department of Agriculture since President Donald Trump took office in January has left many farmers with unfulfilled contracts and broken commitments. Grants that once offered vital financial lifelines have been frozen. Programs that once provided assistance and aid have been eliminated. Uncertainty about the future has become the bumper crop. 'It's just been a barrage from the very beginning,' said Levendofsky of the changes made by the Trump administration. 'We were getting phone calls from not just members of ours, but farmers and ranchers in general, saying, 'What do we do?'' He recalled a recent conversation with the owner of a vineyard in northeastern Kansas who had been promised a loan to build solar panels and an electric vehicle charger. But with USDA freezing funding for the renewable energy projects guaranteed by the Biden-era Inflation Reduction Act, the farmer was stuck with the bill for the already completed project. 'He had a $55,000 USDA-guaranteed loan that now USDA said, 'We're not going to pay,'' said Levendofsky. In April, a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to release the previously authorized frozen funds. That same month, however, the USDA canceled the Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities, a separate grant program intended to promote sustainable farming and forestry practices. The administration repackaged that grant as 'Advancing Markets for Producers,' with existing agreements under review. The Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association, or MOFGA, was among the organizations affected by these changes. The group had a multiyear grant from the Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities program, said executive director Sarah Alexander. Along with another Maine-based group, MOFGA was slated to work with 200 farms in the state to assess whether they met certain criteria to receive funds for improving climate resiliency. 'That money has gone away, and that's been really devastating,' said Alexander. 'That's a really direct impact that's both on our budget and work this year with our staff's [ability] to provide direct training and technical assistance to those farms, but then also the farms ultimately losing out on that money.' The USDA announced in March that it would issue up to $10 billion in relief for commodity producers for the 2024 crop year, and the White House has mulled additional financial assistance for farmers to mitigate potential effects from tariffs. During Trump's first term, USDA doled out roughly $23 billion in aid to farmers amid retaliatory Chinese tariffs on certain American imports, including wheat, soybeans, and corn. Given the current uncertainty surrounding the tariffs that Trump can and may impose—and the status of ongoing trade negotiations with China—it's unclear what kind of financial assistance farmers can expect this time around, if any. But Erin Foster West, policy director at the National Young Farmers Coalition, said that programs intended to help commodity farmers have less of an impact for smaller-scale producers. Meanwhile, the USDA has eliminated the Local Food Purchase Assistance program, which connected small farmers to community food pantries and anti-hunger organizations, as well as the Local Food for Schools program, which allowed schools and childcare facilities to purchase food from local farms. West said that the LFPA had been particularly helpful for members of her organization at the beginning of their careers. 'Many were using that as sort of a bridge as they were growing or expanding, and didn't expect to have that forever but expected to have it for maybe a few more years,' said West. 'Now it feels like the rug has just been pulled out from underneath them without any notice, without any support, without any communication.' Producers also highlight the stalling of farm bill negotiations in Congress as a major source of worry. Typically approved every five years, the farm bill governs the country's nutrition, agricultural, conservation, and forestry policy and is historically passed on a bipartisan basis. However, the 2018 farm bill has been extended twice—most recently at the end of last year—and discussions among lawmakers on crafting the new measure have been largely stagnant. Meanwhile, some of the agenda items that would typically be included in the farm bill are instead being addressed by the One Big, Beautiful Bill Act, the massive Republican legislative package including tax breaks and dramatic cuts to government spending. The bill, which narrowly passed in the House last week, slashes nearly $300 billion from nutrition programs, but includes roughly $60 billion for farm safety-net programs. The measure—which is moving through a process known as 'budget reconciliation' to avoid the 60-vote threshold for approving legislation in the upper chamber—is now under consideration in the Senate. The changes to SNAP include tightened work requirements, which the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated would lead to more than three million recipients losing their benefits in an average month. The bill would also push more of the cost of SNAP onto states, which the CBO estimates could lead to reduced or loss of benefits for around 1.3 million people. Alexander argued that the farm bill was the preferred venue for hashing out nutrition and farm policy. 'They are two sides of the same coin because the food that we're producing in this country should be what is feeding our citizens,' she said. 'SNAP at its essence should be supporting what our farmers are producing.' Farmers and their communities are thus concerned not only about changes in the USDA, but how that upheaval might be compounded by changes to SNAP. Nichelle Harriott, policy director at HEAL Food Alliance, a coalition of organizations that work directly with farming and food systems, said that member groups were now floundering amid the uncertainty on the executive and legislative level. 'We have a member in Georgia, for instance, who the entirety of their work is to ensure that vulnerable children in their communities have access to healthy nutrition. And of course, with the absence of federal funding to do that work—as well as the impending cuts of SNAP—they are really seeing increasing challenges,' said Harriott. If would-be SNAP recipients do not have the benefits to spend at their grocery stores, she said, and small producers also cannot share their crops, there will be 'a lot of ripple effects in local communities.' Levendofsky expressed frustration that many of the people who would be most affected by this double whammy of changes live in rural areas—both producers and SNAP recipients. Rural Americans have consistently higher rates of food insecurity, and non-metro areas have higher rates of participation in SNAP than their urban counterparts. 'We're hurting the very people who have voted for so many of these folks in Congress, and even folks that voted for this administration,' said Levendofsky. 'I'm nervous about what's coming because I think, especially, the folks that supported this administration in the last election didn't feel like they were going to be affected. I think they probably felt like this was, you know, a 'safe' bet or vote for them, and that it wasn't gonna be a problem. Well, it's about to be a problem.'
New York Times
13-02-2025
- Business
- New York Times
Trump's Funding Freezes Bruise a Core Constituency: Farmers
Skylar Holden, a cattle rancher in Missouri, had signed a $240,000 cost-sharing contract with the Agriculture Department to add fencing and improve the watering system for his property. But after the Trump administration abruptly froze federal funding, Mr. Holden said, he was suddenly out tens of thousands of dollars and on the hook for tens of thousands more in labor and material costs, and risked losing his farm. 'Whenever my farm payment comes due, there's a good chance that I'm not going to be able to pay it,' he said in an interview. Mr. Holden's situation underlines the potentially precarious position of farmers across the country, as a rapid-fire array of directives by the Trump administration have paused federal funding on a range of programs and grants. Even as courts have halted many of the orders, rural communities are reeling from the effects, setting off confusion and panic among one of President Trump's core constituencies. Billions of dollars in funding are at stake. One executive order targets the Inflation Reduction Act, including money for farmers to conserve soil and water and to complete energy projects. Other directives touch on grants to states and producers. Another, which froze U.S. foreign aid spending, temporarily left hundreds of millions of dollars worth of food and supplies sitting in ports and has stopped future purchases of grains and goods. Farmers, who voted overwhelmingly for Mr. Trump, have already had a tough stretch. In the last two years, falling prices for corn, soybeans and wheat from 2022 high levels have resulted in declines in net farm income. While that figure is projected to rise sharply this year, largely because of government farm payments, the administration's high-speed policymaking has left many farmers and some agribusinesses wary. 'Farmers don't need any more uncertainty than they already have,' said Nick Levendofsky, the executive director of the Kansas Farmers Union, which represents about 4,000 farms in the state, most of which are family-owned. Direct payments to farmers are in peril. Shortly after being inaugurated, Mr. Trump ordered an indefinite pause on funding provided by the Inflation Reduction Act, President Joseph R. Biden Jr.'s signature climate and domestic spending law. Though a federal judge on Monday ordered the Trump administration to unfreeze the funds, it is unclear when and whether it will follow suit. Asked if it would release the money, the Agriculture Department did not directly respond, saying only that it had ordered 'a comprehensive review' of its contracts, work and personnel. Agency employees who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution said that funding had not been released. If funds remain frozen, that could affect more than 25,000 conservation contracts worth $1.8 billion funded by the climate change law, potentially involving thousands of farmers nationwide. The contracts, typically cost-sharing arrangements reached with the Agriculture Department, are enormously popular, with demand exceeding the amount of money available. Under the contract, farmers, ranchers and landowners are reimbursed for practices that help conserve and protect soil, water and the environment. But the funding has become a prime target for the Trump administration because of its connection to Mr. Biden and its focus on climate. 'This isn't just hippie-dippy stuff,' said Aaron Pape, who raises cattle, pigs and poultry on 300 acres in Wisconsin. 'This is affecting mainstream farmers.' Mr. Pape, who is owed $30,000 for a fencing and water management contract frozen under the directive, said he may be forced to take on additional loans to cover his costs. While he did not vote for Mr. Trump, Mr. Pape said he hoped the president understood that farmers were 'the constituency that put you in power and the actions you are taking are having serious, immediate ramifications for our livelihood.' More than a dozen farmers and ranchers told The New York Times that the tumult had made it more difficult to plan for the year, affecting decisions on seed and equipment purchases. Many expressed worry that the administration could again pause future payments with little warning or take aim at other programs like disaster relief payments and crop insurance, resulting in untold consequences for the food supply. The climate change law also provided about $1.7 billion to shore up an Agriculture Department program for rural energy grants. As with conservation programs, grantees receive reimbursement for projects. The halt, ordered under the directive titled 'Unleashing American Energy,' has left potentially thousands of grantees in limbo or footing the bill. Adam Greene, who raises sheep in a remote area of Washington State, received two grants worth about $33,000 to install solar panels and a heat pump on his farm, where fuel is expensive and the supply is unreliable. To cover the upfront costs, Mr. Greene took out a loan, intending to pay it off when he received reimbursement. Those plans, and hopes of expanding his operation, are now on hold. Like all the farmers who spoke with The Times, Mr. Greene emphasized that while he did not blame Agriculture Department employees, he was more hesitant to work with the federal government again. 'These are commitments that the federal government has made to farmers that we're depending on,' he said. 'If you want to change policy, change policy, but just don't go and blow stuff up.' Mr. Trump has also paused payments made by the Commodity Credit Corporation, a pot of money his first administration used to pay farmers suffering financially from retaliatory tariffs and the Biden administration used to incentivize climate-friendly agricultural practices. It is unclear how much of the funding has been frozen; the Iowa Soybean Association said recently that its members were owed $11 million in reimbursement through that program alone. Adding to the confusion, some farmers reported that grants for marketing their products or buying equipment for distribution were also halted, though those programs are not funded with Inflation Reduction Act dollars. It was not immediately clear what directives were causing the issues. Tom Smude, who operates a seed processing business in Pierz, Minn., recently learned that his $530,000 grant, funded by the state through the American Rescue Plan, was also paused. Mr. Smude took out a bank loan to afford a down payment for equipment that could more efficiently mill sunflower seeds, expecting the grant to cover three-quarters of the cost. But when the equipment arrives, he will have no way of paying for it. Though Mr. Smude said he shared Mr. Trump's belief in cutting government spending, he expressed confusion about the president's priorities. 'It's what he wants, growth in industry and keep America going,' he said. 'I feel like I'm doing my part and now you're going against what you said, a little bit.' For his part, Mr. Holden does not blame Mr. Trump, nor would he change his vote in the presidential election. But as a first-time grantee, Mr. Holden said he regretted having promoted the conservation programs on his popular TikTok account, vowing to 'never do anything with any government agency ever again.' The halt to international aid extends to commodity producers. The move to effectively shut down the U.S. Agency for International Development and place the bulk of its staff on leave has left $489 million of food assistance languishing at docks, in warehouses and in transit at risk of spoilage. Last weekend, Senator Jerry Moran, Republican of Kansas, and others scrambled to find other nonprofit organizations to oversee the logistics. But future humanitarian purchases of grains and other foods grown in the United States are unclear. U.S.A.I.D. buys about $2 billion from farmers a year, and 41 percent of its food assistance shipped abroad is grown domestically, according to a 2021 report. The agency estimated that it purchased 1.1 million metric tons of food from farmers and ranchers in 2023. Some 430 large-scale farmers growing crops in nearly every state fulfilled direct orders from the agency, data compiled by a U.S.A.I.D. employee and shared with The Times shows. The agency bought 161,000 metric tons of American-grown rice for $126 million last year, according to Michael Klein, a spokesman for USA Rice. Likewise, the Agriculture Department's Food for Progress program had purchased as much as one million metric tons of wheat in recent years to distribute to those in need overseas, according to U.S. Wheat Associates, a lobbyist organization for the wheat industry. While that is only a sliver of the annual U.S. wheat production, the program has the additional benefit of promoting American wheat in foreign markets, said Steven Mercer, a spokesman for U.S. Wheat Associates. Ending millions of dollars in grants by U.S.A.I.D. also resulted in the potential closing of research programs at universities across the country. The University of Nebraska, for instance, had a five-year, $19 million grant to develop irrigation techniques in developing nations. Funding for that and other grants has been either terminated or sharply reduced, putting the research in jeopardy. 'We are very, very large beneficiaries of government contracts,' said Dr. Jeffrey Gold, the president of the University of Nebraska, saying that the consequences of such pauses in funding were more far-ranging than many would believe. Elected officials, he added, should 'understand that public land-grant institutions like us are being directly and significantly impacted by these changes.' Some of the ramifications have been averted, for now. In moving to shut U.S.A.I.D., the Trump administration also issued, and then rescinded, stop-work orders to some American manufacturers of food sent abroad. One nonprofit in Georgia, Mana, produces ready-to-use therapeutic food to address childhood malnutrition. It buys about two million pounds of peanuts monthly from American farmers, its said its chief executive, Mark Moore. About $12 million worth of Mana's products — 300,000 boxes, each containing 150 sachets of food to treat severe malnutrition for six weeks — is waiting to leave the Port of Savannah. Mr. Moore did not expect this particular shipment to be delayed, but he was also uncertain whether U.S.A.I.D. would foot the bill or if it would deliver future shipments. 'The real impact of the shutdown will happen a month from now, six weeks from now, when the supply chain begins to crumble, which by that time, will it still be a story?' he asked.
