U.S. Reps. Tom Tiffany and Derrick Van Orden were hyped on Friday afternoon, yelling to the crowd at a Chippewa Falls “farm roundtable” about how great  President Donald Trump is for American farmers and how thrilling it was to have him here in Wisconsin. Was that flop sweat on their glistening foreheads? 

Trump’s approval rating hit a new low of 38% according to a Marquette poll released two days before his rural Wisconsin visit, with most respondents saying Democrats do a better job handling the economy. In rural Wisconsin, the Northern Ag Network reports, high fuel and fertilizer prices have been weighing heavily on farmers ever since Trump began his protracted military entanglement in Iran, while farm income is down and projected to drop further this year.

Van Orden, who is trying to hold onto his 3rd Congressional District seat and Tiffany, who wants to be Wisconsin’s next governor, have been faithful to Trump, voting for his “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” with its historic cuts to Medicaid and food assistance that will fall especially hard on rural areas. The five-year, $50 billion rural healthcare fund added to the bill in the U.S. Senate — which Van Orden touted at the Chippewa Falls event — will not come close to making up for the OBBA’s $137 billion in permanent Medicaid cuts to rural areas, according to KFF health policy research. Those cuts will lead to the closure of rural hospitals and, combined with the rollback of the Affordable Care Act, will leave an estimated 30,000 Wisconsinites without healthcare. 

Trump’s visit to Wisconsin was a kind of Hail Mary. “Who’s excited that Donald J. Trump is here?” Ag Secretary Brooke Rollins shouted hoarsely. “Can I get an amen?” 

It was not an intellectual appeal. As Henry Redman reports, the so-called roundtable mostly consisted of a meandering speech by Trump, who insulted Democrats, mocked former President Joe Biden and showed pictures of his revamp of the Washington, D.C. reflecting pool. Instead of policy, the event offered vibes. But vibes can only do so much to overcome the cold, hard economic reality confronting rural voters.

Tiffany and Van Orden, who helped inflict Trump’s disastrous policies on rural Wisconsinites, are hoping Trump’s star power will propel them to victory. 

Wisconsin GOP Chair Brian Schimming took a stab at justifying the cognitive dissonance that will require of Republican voters, telling the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that Trump is forcing them to go through pain now so that he can fix long-term structural problems and bring them future prosperity. 

It was a pretty good try. Wisconsin farmers have demonstrated tremendous resilience in the face of brutal economic cycles. Those who are still around have persevered as more than half of the state’s dairy farms disappeared over the last two decades, through both Democratic and Republican administrations. Trump has denounced the global trade deals embraced by both political parties and promised to stop global trade from harming U.S. workers and farmers. For people who lived through massive consolidation, vertical integration and the commodification of farm products that sent prices plummeting, major structural change, even if it involves some short-term pain, sounds good. But how much longer can those early promises stay fresh? And how much faith do voters have that Trump really has a long-term plan? 

In Chippewa Falls, Trump spent a lot of time bragging about better than expected recent jobs numbers and ignoring underlying weaknesses in the economy that are a danger sign. He complained that the stock market didn’t share his rosy outlook. And he crowed about stopping illegal immigration, telling Wisconsin farmers who rely heavily on immigrant labor that he has stopped “people from mental institutions” and “murderers” from coming across the border. Wisconsin farmers are the wrong crowd for that red meat.

The most significant thing Trump said, before rushing through the brief “roundtable” section of the program, leaving just enough time for the assembled Republican politicians, two athletes, a beer company executive and one farmer to shower him with praise, was a promise of a massive farm subsidy. “I got $28 billion for the farmers in the first term,” he said, referring to the Market Facilitation Program that paid out big checks to farmers just before the 2020 election, to offset the effects of tariffs and trade wars. Once again, he said, he’s  “working on something” to help farmers, “because what happened to you was artificial.” 

Van Orden and Tiffany are hoping that will be enough to stave off reality a little bit longer.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Congress is looking to roll back state animal welfare laws as it wrangles over reauthorization of the federal farm bill.

The farm bill, which Congress generally reworks every five years, includes money and federal rules for food assistance programs, farm subsidies, and other ag-related programs.

A pending version of the legislation includes the Save Our Bacon Act, which would block states from regulating the raising of livestock. The measure takes direct aim at California’s Proposition 12, which requires farms to meet specific standards providing animals freedom of movement, cage-free confinement and minimum floor space.

A key component of California’s law effectively bans hog sow farms from using gestation crates — pens so small that mother pigs can’t even turn around. Currently, at least 15 states ban battery cages for egg-laying hens, gestation crates for sows or veal crates for calves.

California’s law includes protections for egg-laying hens, but the current farm bill proposal that Congress is considering specifically excludes them.

The California law also bars retailers from selling meats raised in other states that don’t meet the state’s standards. Opponents say that provision places a heavy burden on producers across the country who must meet different standards for different markets.

“This legislation will stop out-of-touch activists — who don’t know the first thing about farming — from dictating how Iowa farmers do their job,” U.S. Rep. Ashley Hinson, an Iowa Republican, said when introducing the Save Our Bacon Act last year.

But supporters of the California law say consumers increasingly demand higher animal welfare standards. They note that farmers outside of California are free to ignore the law — if they choose not to sell into the nation’s most populous state.

A spokesperson for the California Department of Food and Agriculture, which enforces Proposition 12 regulations, said the agency could not comment on pending legislation.

California Assemblywoman Esmeralda Soria, the Democratic chair of the agriculture committee, said voters “spoke clearly” when more than 62% approved the 2018 ballot measure.

“Taking Prop 12 away now, would create long term uncertainty and disruption to California meat and egg production,” Soria said in a statement. “We can do better for California agriculture, and for the millions of people who rely on stable and affordable food systems.”

Following an unsuccessful legal challenge to Proposition 12 by pork producers, lawmakers and ag interests have been pushing for years for federal action to block similar laws. While a similar anti-Proposition 12 measure was introduced in 2023 farm bill negotiations, the effort has gained some momentum after receiving bipartisan support in the U.S. House of Representatives, which approved the farm bill legislation by a 224-200 vote in late April. It’s now the subject of Senate negotiations.

The yearslong debate over agricultural regulations has inflamed tensions between states and the feds over who should regulate various sectors of the economy, mirroring ongoing debates about artificial intelligence and online prediction markets.

An issue of state autonomy

Most of the focus has centered on California, which has the world’s fourth largest economy. But opponents say the congressional proposal could upend hundreds of state laws and regulations.

An analysis by Harvard Law School’s Animal Law and Policy Clinic concluded that the Save Our Bacon Act could affect more than 600 state agricultural regulations, including seafood labeling requirements, food safety regulations and state restrictions aimed at preventing the spread of pests and diseases, such as the New World screwworm.

“Congress would be overturning the results of democratic elections and devaluing animal welfare investments made by livestock producers across the country,” researchers wrote, noting it would take years for regulators and courts to sort out implementation of the legal change, creating years of uncertainty for regulators, consumers and producers.

Texas Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller said he doesn’t agree with California’s mandates but said he would “defend to my dying day California’s right to self-determination.”

In an interview, Miller said Proposition 12 has driven up the price of eggs and pork. But he said the Constitution’s 10th Amendment clearly endows states with such power by reserving for the states those powers not delegated to the federal government.

“It is what it is,” he said. “I’m ready to move on and accept Prop 12.”

Miller, who recently lost the Republican primary for reelection, said producers who have poured millions into revamping their operations to ensure more space for animals would be “up a creek without a paddle” if the law is blocked by Congress.

“They spent all that money for nothing if that happens,” he said.

Proponents say consumers are already demanding higher standards.

“No one is mandated to sell in California, and I think that’s a really important piece of this. This is all market driven, and so there are other options,” said Alicia Prygoski, strategic legislative affairs manager for the Animal Legal Defense Fund, a nonprofit advocating for animal protections.

Prygoski characterized Proposition 12 as a “common sense, reasonable measure” that allows animals the freedom to move and exhibit natural behaviors. She rejected arguments that such animal welfare laws create a burdensome patchwork of regulations for farmers, noting that states already have a variety of ag rules regarding animal imports, noxious weed transportation and zoonotic diseases.

‘We care a lot about our animals’

Trish Cook, who raises about 40,000 pigs per year on her family’s Iowa farm, said large-scale swine operations like hers rely on scientific guidance from groups such as the American Veterinary Medical Association and American Association of Swine Veterinarians.

Cook is a board member of the Iowa Pork Producers and the National Pork Producers Council, the latter of which unsuccessfully sued to block California’s Proposition 12. In 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision upheld California’s rules.

In April, the organization and the American Farm Bureau Federation wrote to congressional leaders arguing that Proposition 12 has created uncertainty across rural America, especially on small and medium-size farms that can’t afford to retrofit barns. The letter was signed by nearly 400 agricultural groups.

The issue is particularly relevant in Iowa, by far the nation’s largest pork producer with nearly one-third of American hogs raised there.

Cook said most pig farmers she knows are not producing Proposition 12-compliant pork because California’s demand is being met. But, she said, Congress must protect farmers before more states pass different rules and regulations.

“I do still feel like it’s really important that we get a fix for things like Prop 12, because this is just the beginning,” she said.

Cook said consumers across the country should have access to her pork products without following “arbitrary” rules created by state ballot measures. As an example, she cited the California requirement that each sow have access to 24 square feet of usable floor space. That footage allows the sow to turn around completely within its pen.

“If you didn’t enjoy raising pigs, you wouldn’t be in the business,” she said. “So we care a lot about our animals, we care about taking care of them, having them in the best facilities, and being comfortable with the climate that we provide them.”

Some producers, though, say they are troubled by the confinement systems commonly used in industrial agriculture.

“Keeping a 500-pound gestating sow in a metal crate where she can’t ever turn around for the vast majority of her adult life is simply not good animal husbandry,” said Alicia LaPorte, senior director of communications and impact at Niman Ranch, a national network of hundreds of farms producing what they call humanely raised meat.

Although Niman’s 500 hog farms have always been crate free, LaPorte said they have spent time and money ensuring compliance with California’s Proposition 12. She said the proposed legislation in Congress would pull the rug out from under family farmers who played by the rules and made huge investments to comply.

“They are actively devaluing these investments, disrupting stable markets and putting forward-thinking family farms at financial risk,” she said.

By moving away from confinement to more humane practices like group housing, LaPorte said producers can see increased profitability through improved sow health, lower stress and higher conception rates. And growing demand for such products pushed laws like Proposition 12 in the first place.

“The consumer drove the change,” she said, “and policy secured the marketplace.”

Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org. 

Trump spoke for about an hour at the event, billed as a roundtable discussion, covering topics ranging from border security to manufacturing and his project to repaint the bottom of Washington D.C.'s Reflecting Pool.

The post Trump visit to Chippewa Falls highlights rural agenda in nationally watched swing district appeared first on WPR.

President Donald Trump held a roundtable discussion Friday at Custer Farms in Chippewa Falls to tout his administration’s efforts to help farmers. 

Trump’s visit is his first to Wisconsin during this year’s election season. First to take the stage on Friday were U.S. Reps. Derrick Van Orden and Tom Tiffany, signaling the importance of the 3rd Congressional District and the Wisconsin gubernatorial contest  for Republicans this year. 

Despite Trump’s waning approval ratings, Van Orden and Tiffany tied themselves to the president, effusively praising him.

Trump appeared on stage for the roundtable with both congressmen as well as U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson, Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins, farm owner Ken Custer, Jake Leinenkugel, Olympic speed skater Jordan Stolz and Joe Thomas, a Hall of Fame former NFL player who played for UW-Madison and now owns a western Wisconsin beef farm. 

Despite its billing as a roundtable discussion of agriculture policy, Trump spoke for more than 40 minutes straight, at times appearing to read from a script and at others riffing on a number of favorite topics including former Presidents Joe Biden and Barack Obama, “Dumbocrats in Congress,” the allegedly “rigged” 2020 presidential election, transgender people, his multi-million dollar D.C. renovation projects and the southern border. 

“These are some very sick puppies that I’m looking at that are running for office and on the other side,” Trump said. “I call them the Dumocrats, D-U-M, you take out the B, a lot of people don’t know, dumb has a b, a lot of people don’t know. You take out the b and change the E, you put the you and you have a Dumocrat, but they are, their policy is just outstandingly bad, and it’s really bad for the farmer, because we were having record stuff, and then we had to put out a fire, we had to extinguish a nuclear weapon.” 

With six months until November’s midterm elections, many of Trump’s signature policies have directly affected the bottom line of Wisconsin farmers. Trump’s tariffs and war in Iran have greatly increased the cost of essentials such as fertilizer and gas while limiting access to foreign markets for corn and soybeans. In western Wisconsin communities close to where he appeared on Friday, Trump’s immigration crackdown in Minnesota’s Twin Cities extended into the Dairy State, directly striking the undocumented migrant labor the region’s farmers rely on. 

“If anybody you hear says that Donald Trump doesn’t care about the farmers, you can look him straight in the eye and tell him that’s a pile of manure, because the man is right back there,” Van Orden said. “We’re going to make sure our farmers don’t have to wring their hands at night because they’re worried about paying bills.” 

Trump and other speakers promised that the administration and congressional Republicans are working to ease the burden on American farmers, but offered little in the way of concrete proposals for how fertilizer, seed, gas and equipment will get cheaper or how milk, corn and soybeans will get easier to sell. 

“Your fertilizer prices are going to go way down, just like they were four months ago,” Trump said. “Your fertilizer is down, your energy’s down, your oil, your gas is all coming way down. And frankly, I thought it would go much higher than it did.” 

In the days leading up to Friday’s event Democratic politicians and Democratic-aligned groups rolled out a series of tours, roundtables and online events to highlight complaints about administration policies on all manner of things. 

“Wisconsin farmers do backbreaking work to produce world-class products that feed the world and drive our rural economies. President Trump came into office promising to support our farmers, but instead has taken every opportunity to jack up their costs, limit their customers, and cut into their margins,” U.S. Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin) said in a statement. “Between Donald Trump’s trade war, unnecessary war in Iran, and attacks on our health care system, Wisconsin farmers are paying more for everything, and Donald Trump has no solutions to the problems he’s caused. As President Trump visits Wisconsin, he owes our farmers more than lip service – they need real relief from the high costs they are paying.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The average price for a pound of beef hit a record-high $9.64 in April. Steak and ground beef prices are both up more than 14 percent compared to this time last year. An agriculture professor says these prices are on the rise and a butcher shop owner shares what he’s seeing.

The post Wisconsin sees record-high beef prices alongside high demand appeared first on WPR.

The world’s largest meat and dairy companies, many of which operate in Wisconsin, have made hundreds of claims that their practices are sustainable and promises of future climate protection initiatives. But a report released last month in the journal PLOS Climate found that hardly any of those claims are legitimate. 

The report, authored by researchers at the University of Miami, assessed publicly made environmental claims and promises of the 33 largest meat and dairy companies in the world. The corporations assessed in the report includes companies with Wisconsin operations such as Saputo Cheese, Tyson Foods, JBS, Hormel Foods, Dairy Farmers of America and Nestle. 

Since 2021, the corporations made 1,233 environmental claims but, according to the report, 98% of those claims can be called “greenwashing” because they were made without supporting evidence. Only three of the claims were backed with actual peer reviewed studies. 

“This study is consistent with what we have experienced: big claims, big promises, but little in the way of quantifiable improvement in environmental quality,” said George Kraft, the former Director of the Center for Watershed Science and Education at UW-Extension and UW-Stevens Point who now sits on the science council of Wisconsin’s Greenfire. 

The report’s authors argue that it’s important to assess the claims of these companies because corporate meat and dairy operations cause a huge proportion of global greenhouse gas emissions. 

“Meat and dairy companies, which produce disproportionate amounts of pollution relative to other kinds of foods, have prioritized climate change in their sustainability initiatives,” the report states. “They make many promises and provide very little supporting evidence. Like the fossil fuel industry, which has used greenwashing over the last several decades to delay meaningful climate action, the meat and dairy industry may be misleading consumers and investors regarding whether and to what extent they are addressing environmental impacts, including climate change, with even less time to spare.” 

In Wisconsin, economic forces have for decades pushed the state’s dairy industry to get bigger. Hundreds of factory dairy farms are now permitted to operate in the state, putting more cows on more concentrated plots of land while the state’s corporate dairy interests fight at the local and state level to prevent government regulation. 

Tara Greiman, the Wisconsin Farmers Union’s director of conservation and stewardship, told the Wisconsin Examiner that corporate agriculture has been the dominant force in the industry for the last 50 years and the effect of that control on the environment is clear. 

“They can say as much as they want, ‘look at all of our promises, look at what good stewards we are,’ but the fact of the matter is that our groundwater quality is depleting in the sectors that they control, our ecological habitat diversity depleting, we are losing farmers at the same time,” she said. “There’s other economic factors, but speaking in terms of just the climate measurements, they’re not doing a good job.” 

Earlier this month, the environmental organization Clean Wisconsin released a report outlining the steps Wisconsin’s agricultural industry will need to take to help the state achieve its climate emissions goals. The research found that reducing nitrogen fertilizer use, reducing the amount of acreage used for corn-based ethanol production, practices such as no-till and cover crops, better livestock management and the planting of perennials instead of commodity crops would help put Wisconsin on the right track. 

Chelsea Chandler, Clean Wisconsin’s climate, energy and air program director, told the Examiner the fact that corporate agribusiness feels the need to make sustainability claims is a first step. She said that sometimes companies are intentionally “overstating the benefits” of a practice, lack enough data or are extrapolating too much across different parts of the world. Still, the discussion can lead to helpful action and the adoption of scientifically backed solutions. 

Clean Wisconsin’s climate solutions roadmap can help, Chandler said,  “because it’s based on the latest science, it’s tailored specifically to Wisconsin, and it’s checking some of those claims that are overstated when it comes to the climate impacts.” 

Chandler hopes that providing good information will affect investment and support, “whether that’s coming from private companies who are trying to improve their sustainability in their operations, or if that’s coming from governments through different kinds of incentive mechanisms and channeling those into the things that are really having an impact” 

Both Chandler and Greiman said that deliberate choices built the food system we have today and it will take deliberate choices to build something more sustainable. 

“We need a new food system. Growing corn, even if you’re doing no-till, even if you’re cover-cropping after it, if you’re only growing corn and soybeans, it’s not a regenerative system. Full stop,” Greiman said. “We have to have new markets, otherwise we’re just rearranging deck chairs, and the research is saying this.” 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

By Rebecka Pieder/Medill News Service

WASHINGTON – In a deal that could provide a major trade boost for American farmers, the White House said that during the recent summit, China committed to buying at least $17 billion in additional U.S. agricultural products annually for three years. 

But Beijing has not confirmed the figure and farm groups expressed skepticism that the deal would materialize.

“I think we are cautiously optimistic when it comes to these things because we’ve been on both sides of this equation. You know, the first time we went through the tariff crisis, we lost 20% market share,” said Todd Main, director of market development at the Illinois Soybean Association.

President Donald Trump visited Beijing in May for talks. Two days after the U.S. delegation returned, the White House shared a list of achievements reached between the two countries. 

This included a commitment that China would increase U.S. beef imports and buy at least $17 billion per year in additional U.S. agricultural products over the next three years. In a statement to Medill News Service on May 20, the Chinese Embassy in Washington did not confirm the $17 billion or the time frame. However, it discussed progress on the trade of beef and other agricultural products. 

Tariffs hit hard

American farmers have been caught in a cost pinch for years. Grain prices are down, and the costs of machinery and fertilizer are up, making it harder for farmers to break even. 

Last year, these pressures were exacerbated as the Trump administration placed high tariffs on Chinese imports, sparking Beijing to retaliate by halting imports of U.S. agricultural products. 

China is the world’s largest importer of agricultural products. This hit Midwestern farmers particularly hard. Iowa and Illinois produce the most soybeans in the United States, and China is their largest market by far.

If Beijing were to follow through on the commitments announced by the White House, it would increase total U.S. farm exports to China to $28 billion to $30 billion a year, according to Reuters. While this would be below the $38 billion exported in 2022, it would be higher than the $24 billion in 2024 and much higher than last year’s $8 billion. 

A return to predictable trade relations between the U.S. and China would benefit farmers, said Chris Chinn, Director of the Missouri Department of Agriculture.

“This announcement is a great first step in what we hope is a full commitment to purchasing American products,” he said.

Jerry Costello II, director of the Illinois Department of Agriculture, echoed this sentiment while expressing doubts at the likelihood of the deal panning out.

“If China truly committed to purchasing an additional $17 billion in U.S. agricultural products for three years and followed through on the purchases, it would provide meaningful support for Illinois farmers,” he said. “Unfortunately, it’s not that simple.”

When asked to confirm the $17 billion number, a spokesperson for the Chinese embassy notably omitted any mention of the figure or the time frame. 

“It is hoped that both sides will create favorable conditions for two-way agricultural trade by jointly reducing tariffs, removing non-tariff barriers, and expanding market access, so as to promote the recovery and continuous expansion of cooperation in agricultural trade,” the spokesperson said. 

China also resumed registration of U.S. beef suppliers after the summit, according to the spokesperson.

Soybean imports cut off

After the Trump administration imposed sprawling tariffs on China last year, China halted imports of U.S. soybeans for several months. In November, the U.S and China reached a trade agreement in which China committed to purchasing 12 million metric tons of soybeans by the end of February. The order represented a sharp decrease from 2024 levels.

“The ag industry has heard big promises before, but the actual trade commitments have often failed to materialize,” Costello said. “During previous trade agreements, China fell well short of its pledged purchases, leaving farmers to suffer the economic impact.”

Lance Muirhead, a seventh generation farmer in Macon County, Illinois, has felt the costs of the trade war first hand. As a direct result of ongoing trade disputes, he has had to tighten the budget on the farm he operates together with his family, he said.

“It has put a halt on us buying any new equipment we might have been in the market for,” Muirhead said. “I run a 16-year-old combine that I’d like to upgrade to a slightly newer model, but that’s just not in the budget the way commodity prices have been.”

He is “skeptically optimistic” about the new proposed trade agreement. While a tweet or a promise can have positive effects on the market, that hype is short-lived unless commitments are followed through with concrete purchases the way they were last fall, he said.

“I think the proof will be in the pudding and only time will tell, but I sure hope the agreement is executed,” he said. “When China has that big of a basket, it’s hard not to want to put all of your eggs, or soybeans, into it.”

‘Just fluff’?

Senator Adam Schiff, D-Calif., also expressed skepticism.

“There’s a long history of the president coming back and misrepresenting what he’s achieved. My first question is, are any of these commitments real or are they just fluff?” Schiff, a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, told Medill News Service.

When China halted imports last year, it was a massive blow to U.S. soybean exports, said Main, of the Illinois Soybean Association. It’s a market that has been built up over the last 30 years, and establishing new markets takes time. 

Even if the deal were to pan out, soybean farmers still should diversify their buyers so they are no longer so reliant on China, he said.

“If you look out a decade or so, we know that long-term China is not going to be the dominant buyer that it once was,” Main said. “And so we have to pivot.” 

Medill News Service articles are reported and written by graduate student journalists in the Washington program of the Medill School at Northwestern University.

Wisconsin-based Organic Valley and other major organic brands are challenging the federal system regulating the sale of milk, which they claim favors conventional producers.

The post Organic Valley sues to leave federal milk marketing system appeared first on WPR.

A report released this month finds Wisconsin farming would have to undergo a major transformation to reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

The post As agriculture emissions rise, report says bold change needed to reach net-zero in Wisconsin appeared first on WPR.

The announcement that Cargill is closing its Menomonee Valley plant and laying off 221 packinghouse workers is just the latest blow to Milwaukee’s industrial working class. It marks the end of more than 150 years of meatpacking in the Menomonee Valley. It is a cautionary tale illustrating how huge, highly concentrated industries dominate the United States economy to the detriment of workers, family farmers and consumers. 

Meatpacking was one of Milwaukee’s leading industries through much of the 19th  and 20th centuries. The industry and city grew together as firms slaughtered, processed and packaged livestock — particularly hogs and cattle — purchased from local farmers and distributed  products for regional, national and international markets. Because the work was hard, dangerous, cold and dirty, it provided an entry into the working class for Milwaukee’s newest residents — immigrants from Germany, southern and eastern Europe at the turn of the 20th Century, then from the Jim Crow South, Mexico and more recently even Myanmar and the Middle East

Some of Milwaukee’s most iconic names are associated with meatpacking. John Plankinton, for example, opened a butcher shop in 1844 on what is now West Wisconsin Avenue, and John and Frederick Layton opened Layton and Son a short time later on what is today North Water Street. In 1852 the Laytons partnered with another firm to establish a larger meatpacking operation in the Menomonee Valley. As the marsh was filled in and canal and rail networks developed, the valley’s large, flat areas emerged as an ideal location for the city’s fledgling meatpacking district that lasted until Cargill announced  it was closing its last remaining Milwaukee plant. 

The loss of the plant’s 221 jobs was not preordained or a consequence  of Adam Smith’s invisible hand. Rather it was the direct result of anti-union corporate policies and the federal government’s failure to pursue existing anti-monopoly regulations that once protected regional meatpacking firms, their unionized employees and the ranchers and farmers who produced the cattle.

The fight against monopolies

The Sherman Antitrust Act, the nation’s first law to prohibit monopolistic business practices, was actually passed following a congressional investigation of price fixing in meatpacking. Five companies — Armour, Swift, Morris, Wilson and Cudahy, together known as the Beef Trust — controlled 55% of the market at the beginning of the 20th century. For decades, the federal government tried to break up the Beef Trust without success. But after an FTC inquiry concluded that these companies had conspired to raise prices and shared livestock information to lowball ranchers for their cattle, the Beef Trust members were forced to sign a consent decree in 1920.  

The agreement required them to sell off their stockyards, retail meat stores, railway interests and livestock journals. A year later Congress created the Packers and Stockyards Administration (PASA) to prevent price fixing and monopolistic behavior. These changes established federal oversight over the industry and helped reinvigorate packinghouse workers’ efforts to unionize, which culminated in the 1930 industrial union drives. In the decade after World War II, almost 90% of the industry was unionized. Pattern bargaining established master agreements that standardized wages, benefits and working conditions at the major packing companies. Smaller firms signed contracts that matched those at the larger firms. Packinghouse workers’ wages rose to 20% above average manufacturing wages.

For the next 50 years the large meatpackers competed with hundreds of small regional firms like those in Milwaukee’s Menomonee Valley. As recently as 1970 the nation’s four largest  meatpackers slaughtered only 21% of the nation’s cattle. 

But beginning in the 1960s packinghouse workers and their unions came under attack when Iowa Beef Processors was organized as a nonunion operation in the countryside of Iowa and Nebraska, far from the unionized urban meatpacking centers.  Currier Holman, one of its founders, was blunt, declaring, “Business, as we pursue it here at IBP, is very much like waging war.” Iowa Beef used its cost advantage to undermine the unionized packing plants. “The price cut should be deep enough to force some of our competitors . . . out of business,” declared IBP vice president Perry Haines in the early 1970s, according to an internal memo disclosed years later in court records.   

And Iowa Beef was successful. Profits at the country’s largest meatpacking firms  soared as labor costs declined and labor productivity increased.  In the late 1970s and early  ‘80s, more than a thousand packing plants closed. Between 1963 and 1984, the number of packinghouse workers in urban areas fell by more than 50,000; workers in rural plants went  from 25% of the national workforce to 50%.  Packinghouse workers’ wages were decimated. By the 1990s, packinghouse workers’ wages were 20% less than the average manufacturing wage. Today, meatpacking workers are among the lowest paid and most exploited manufacturing workers. 

A union defeat sets the stage for monopoly

In 1975, Milwaukee was the scene of a heroic fight that packinghouse workers and their union waged against the draconian cuts in compensation and to protect their jobs.  It began with a contract proposal from the Milwaukee Independent Meatpackers Association, representing eight companies in the city, that slashed wages and benefits. Local 248 of the Meat and Allied Foodworkers Union went on strike. 

The day the strike began, the eight employers began hiring replacement workers, some recruited from as far away as Nebraska and Texas. It was the first attempt by Milwaukee employers to bust a union since World War II. The Menomonee Valley filled with angry picketers — Black, Latino and white, rallying together to protect their jobs. But after 15 months, the employers association had their victory and decertified the union, while hundreds of hard-working union men lost their jobs. Full-time permanent employees were replaced by low-wage workers, frequently hired through temp agencies. The strike legitimized replacement workers, setting off  waves of attacks on Milwaukee’s working class and their unions,  including at Patrick Cudahy 10 years later, and contributed to the economic collapse of Milwaukee’s Black community.   

As the strike dragged on, Bernie Peck, the owner of Peck Packing, the largest of the firms in the employers’ association, bought out smaller firms in the group. He eventually sold the company to Sara Lee Meat Group in 1985. Sara Lee Meat Group was sold to Emmpak, which was eventually sold to Cargill Inc. — today one of four meatpacking firms that control the U.S. market.  Cargill shuttered most of the Milwaukee operations in 2014, laying off over 600 workers, leaving only the ground beef plant that is now being eliminated, the last remnant of the historic Menomonee Valley meatpacking district. 

Today, Cargill, the largest privately held company in the United States, and the other three giants  — Tyson Foods, JBS USA  and National Beef — dominate more than 80% of the U.S. fed-cattle market. That gives them near-total control over cattle prices and the national beef supply chain, a power they have abused relentlessly against ranchers and consumers alike. The words of Upton Sinclair from “The Jungle” ring as true today as when he wrote them in 1906: “They were a gigantic combination of capital, which had crushed all opposition, and overthrown the laws of the land, and was preying upon the people.”

In February 2025, JBS USA agreed to pay $83.5 million to settle a class-action antitrust suit alleging that the company, along with Tyson, Cargill and National Beef, colluded to suppress the prices paid to ranchers  and inflate downstream margins — one of several cases documenting the industry’s monopoly practices.  In October, Tyson and Cargill settled for a combined $87.5 million. These are not isolated incidents but part of a broader price-fixing economy, in which the meatpackers share market data, restrict capacity and move in lockstep to extract profit from both ranchers and consumers. The meatpackers also delay slaughter schedules to force ranchers into distressed sales and manipulate captive-supply contracts that lock independent producers into one-sided terms.

The repeal of Country-of-Origin Labeling (COOL) has amplified meatpackers’ power. With labeling transparency gone, packers can legally import cheap beef from Mexico, Brazil, or Argentina, blend it with U.S. product, and sell it under a domestic label. Consumers pay premium prices believing they’re buying American, while ranchers receive depressed bids for cattle amid increasing import competition. COOL’s repeal effectively legalized country of origin misrepresentation, enabling packers to and reap near-monopoly profits from deception and price fixing. 

While ranchers lose leverage and see their herds shrink, and consumers pay more at the supermarket, the meatpackers’ margins have soared. USDA data show that the gap between what ranchers are paid for cattle and what consumers pay for beef has widened sharply in recent years — clear evidence that meatpackers are capturing an ever-larger share of the final beef dollar even as U.S. cattle inventories decline.

How monopoly power costs workers — and the community

The result is a market that looks competitive on paper but operates like a monopoly — where a handful of corporations control price setting, labeling, and distribution from feedlot to grocery shelf.

The number of workers in the industry has fallen precipitously, while output per worker has increased by 79%, according to the Department of Labor. In essence, fewer people are producing more and working harder. As the meatpackers increased chain speeds, the number of debilitating injuries to workers caused by the repetitive motions of their arms, wrists and hands began increasing. Labor Department figures show that from 1973 through 1986, the number of workdays lost each year to injury or illness at  meat plants rose from 136.6 per 100 workers to 238.3. By contrast, among manufacturers overall, lost workdays over the same years hovered between 70 and 90 per 100 workers and at several points dipped below 70.

The attacks on packinghouse workers’ unions and the increased economic concentration of meatpacking firms are bad for workers, ranchers and consumers. And it is not an anomaly. Most important sectors of the United States economy — industries as varied as airlines, cereal, soft drinks, fire trucks and even concert ticket sales — are dominated by a handful of firms. The result is monopoly profits for the companies while workers are exploited. Meanwhile the  consumers and the suppliers that survive are at the mercy of these ravenous companies. 

The lack of antitrust action has destroyed an iconic Wisconsin industry and the jobs of its packinghouse workers. The end of Cargill is a canary in the coal mine for the U.S. economy.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Reading Time: 6 minutes

All of Greg Thoren’s cows are technically identified by the number on their ear tag. But when he drives around his pastures checking in on his animals, they go by another name: Sweetie. 

“Hey, sweetie,” he reassured one cow — her ear labeled 604. “Hi, honey. You’re okay.”

In the spring, one of Thoren’s daily tasks is tooling around looking for calves that were born overnight. This cow had a newborn.

“You’re okay. You had that baby this morning.”  

He stepped out of the truck, caught hold of the calf and in a few moments had looked it over, tagged its ear and popped back into the truck. He made a couple of notes in a battered pocket notebook and continued on through the fields. 

Thoren comes out to greet his cows most days, bringing a pile of hay in the bed of his old pickup truck as a snack. If he stops for long enough, the herd descends on his truck, eating straight from the bed. 

He’s a regenerative farmer, which means that as much as he cares for his animals, he cares about his soil more. He used to work the land as intensely as any other conventional farmer, but he quit “cold turkey” years ago. 

Now, he’s cover-cropping, rotational-grazing, no-tilling and trying out any other conservation method he wants to experiment with. And it’s showing interesting results: He’s saving a lot of money, his cows are healthier, and his profits are growing. Plus, researchers have shown that these and similar conservation methods reduce soil erosion and water pollution and help to store more carbon in the soil compared to conventional methods. 

He also shares what he’s learned with a group called the Jo Daviess County Soil and Water Health Coalition. The work they do is at the heart of the “farmer-led movement,” a grassroots initiative to put farmers at the center of agricultural innovation, rather than top-down academics or government officials. The movement is well underway in northwest Illinois, and similar examples can be found throughout the U.S. and across the globe. 

The coalition believes that one of the most effective ways to make farms more resilient — and more profitable — is to invite people into farmer-led conversations about soil health and water quality. Many farmers in the coalition are trying their own conservation methods and sharing the outcomes at field days and regular meetups.

This shared knowledge is meant to create a community of farmers who are shifting their mindset. They show up to learn from one another and experiment with conservation themselves. The coalition estimates their outreach, education and events have reached hundreds of people.

‘Figuring out practices that will work’

Corn Belt farmers are in the midst of multiple crises. Conventional farming practices are contributing to pollution, erosion and financial misfortune. Farm debt and bankruptcies are rising, and so are prices for inputs like fertilizer, pesticides and fuel. Meanwhile, the prices farmers get for crops like corn, soybeans and wheat are on a downturn. The Midwest lost more than 30,000 farms between 2017 and 2024.

The farmer-led movement offers an answer to these crises.

“Change is what needs to happen,” said Beth Baranski, the organizing secretary for the Jo Daviess County Soil and Water Health Coalition. “The farmer-led movement allows people to share the risk and minimize the risk. … The key is the farmers on their farms, in their fields, figuring out the practices that will work for them to achieve these goals.” 

Many farmers in the movement are still using conventional practices. It’s not necessarily the goal of the coalition to convince everyone to take on 100% regenerative practices. The group recognizes every farmer comes to it from a different place and has different priorities for their land and operations. Even if they wanted to try regenerative farming practices, razor-thin margins make it financially risky to make the switch. 

Instead, the goal is for farmers to show their neighbors what’s possible and learn from each other. 

And while there are plenty of government programs and grants and incentives that could help in theory, Baranski said many farmers are skeptical about how well they actually work. She said that, generally, they’re more likely to trust another farmer. 

“Somebody coming from the corporate world or from an institution … and saying, ‘This is what you need to do,’ is not as effective as a neighboring farmer who has tried one practice and found it beneficial,” she said. 

‘Farmers tend to push it’

The coalition offers connection and tested solutions to some of agriculture’s biggest problems. But it’s a slow-growing movement, and much of the industry is set up to work in opposition to the coalition’s goals, said Jonathan Coppess, an associate professor of agricultural policy at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. 

“When things are tight and margins are tough, what we’ve seen historically is farmers tend to push it, right? You push the land, you try to put more land in production,” he said.

Coppess said policy coming from the government should support innovation like regenerative agriculture so farmers don’t have to choose between protecting soil and water and making a profit. But he said policies act like a barrier instead.

“If you’re running tight — or even sometimes negative — margins on a crop, you’re going to try to get more of that crop so you can have a little bit more room to market it. And you’re going to try to do everything you can to put bushels in the bin.” 

He said that pressure makes it that much harder for farmers to move away from conventional practices and try conservation. 

“In theory, farmers could just decide to put less nitrogen on (their fields),” he said. “The risk of doing that is pretty significant. And so our policies may be making it worse … but we’re also not addressing those issues. And so to me, it’s almost like paradoxes within paradoxes wrapped in ironies.” 

He said conservation-minded farmers can be put at a competitive disadvantage to other farmers and across the supply chain.

“Farmers doing conservation practices are some of our most innovative,” he said. “They’re thinking well ahead. … Maybe it takes three or four or five years for this practice to really begin to pay off, and that’s a really critical but difficult investment.”

The farmer-led movement does have some federal backing. The coalition got seed money from an organization called the Fishers & Farmers Partnership, which uses Congress-appropriated money to support similar projects in the Midwest. They also support projects that actually install conservation practices. So far, they’ve funded 70 projects, and with matching funds from other sources to support these projects, they’ve generated more than $9 million for initiatives that put farmers at the center of the conversation. 

Amy Smith is one of the directors of the partnership. She said it is important to fund work that starts with the farmer. 

“We’re focusing on the farmer because we’re focusing on people,” she said. “We are sitting with that farmer at the table, and we’re pulling in other people that they can connect with, and then they’re doing the same on the back end. They’re connecting with neighbors; they’re connecting with local county members.”

The partnership has awarded grants for more than 15 years, and so far, they’ve helped to enhance 113 habitats and conserve almost 40,000 acres of land. Since 2021, their work has engaged more than 175,000 people in outreach or education events like the ones Jo Daviess County Soil and Water Health Coalition hosts. 

“Creating this mind shift in one farmer can lead to the mind shift of 20,” Smith said. “And that’s where we see watershed-scale change, landscape-scale change.”

Inviting people in 

As Thoren turned his truck onto the dirt road toward home, he said even though farming this way isn’t exactly easy, but when it’s stripped down to the basics, it’s pretty simple. 

“You’ve got to think about the farm. It’s not about the people. It’s about the farm. It’s about the land. It’s about the soil. That’s why I tell these young people, ‘Come in with me.’ I said, ‘It’s not about me. It’s not about you. It’s about the soil.’” 

That kind of understanding doesn’t come easy under the current industry that incentivizes conventional farming, he said. But when farmers’ minds start to shift, so can the whole system. 

“It just all comes together,” Thoren said. “It’s not the system. It’s the mindset of the person to get the system activated, but you got to have the mindset of the person first. That’s my true belief.”

He’s hosting a field day later this summer, and other farmers connected to the group are hosting their own field days, as well. It’s a testament to the success of the coalition; they get to be in a supporting role to farmers who are leading the way forward.

This story is a product of the Mississippi River Basin Ag & Water Desk, an independent reporting network based at the University of Missouriin partnership with Report for America, with major funding from the Walton Family Foundation.

Wisconsin Watch is a member of the Ag & Water Desk network. Sign up for our newsletters to get our news straight to your inbox.

How one program is working to bring Corn Belt farmers together for conservation agriculture is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Community-supported agriculture has been a popular way for people to buy produce from local farms for decades. There's new pressure on farmers to offer more customization and convenience — but some CSA supporters worry that may dilute the original purpose.

The post CSA boxes get people buying fresh from farms, but will customer convenience hurt the mission? appeared first on WPR.

Many farmers are facing a challenging economy, and it's forcing some to make tough choices about how much to invest in this season’s crops.

The post Farmers look at new ways to cut costs as turning a profit gets harder appeared first on WPR.

When most people think about biotechnology, they often think about medicine or science labs. But during our most recent Forum, leaders from across agriculture, manufacturing, research, and policy explored a different reality: biotechnology is increasingly becoming part of the future of farming itself. 

And in many ways, that future is already here. 

The conversation centered on the growing “bioeconomy,” a term used to describe products and industries powered by biological resources and life science innovation. While that may sound technical, the real-world applications are surprisingly familiar. 

Paper products. Household cleaners. Clothing fibers. Food ingredients. Renewable fuels. Packaging materials. Even alternatives to plastics and industrial chemicals. 

Many of these products can now be created using agricultural feedstocks and advanced fermentation technologies, opening the door to entirely new markets for farmers and rural communities. 

Agriculture’s Expanding Role 

Biotechnology is increasingly being viewed as a solution to some of the world’s biggest challenges, including food security, climate resilience, health, and sustainable manufacturing. 

For decades, agriculture has largely focused on producing food, feed, and fuel. But biotechnology is rapidly expanding what crops and agricultural byproducts can become. 

One topic discussed throughout the Forum was precision fermentation, a process that uses feedstocks like corn sugar, soy glycerol, sorghum, sugar beets, and sugar cane to create products through fermentation. In simple terms, plant materials are placed into fermentation systems where microorganisms produce ingredients and materials that can later be used in consumer goods and manufacturing.  

The products created through these systems can range from natural food dyes and personal care products to polymers designed to replace petroleum-based plastics. Speakers noted that many major companies have already been using fermentation technologies in parts of their product portfolios for years.  

For agriculture, that means crops may increasingly serve as the foundation for industries far beyond traditional commodity markets. 

A Growing Consumer Market 

Consumer awareness around plant-based and bio-based products is also growing. 

Research shared during the forum showed that 67% of consumers say they use plant-based products monthly, while 86% say they are likely to include plant-based products in the next three months.  

Importantly, panelists emphasized that these products are not limited to food. Consumers are already encountering bio-based materials in: 

• disposable food service ware  

• household cleaning products  

• paper goods  

• clothing and textiles  

• personal care products  

Speakers also noted that consumers increasingly view agriculture more favorably when they understand the role farmers play in producing these materials and products.  

Why the Midwest Matters 

The Midwest is particularly well-positioned to play a major role in the bioeconomy because of its strong agricultural production and existing infrastructure. 

Illinois, Indiana, and Nebraska were repeatedly highlighted during the discussion as regions likely to see continued growth in biomanufacturing and fermentation technologies. Biomass and agricultural feedstocks are often processed close to where they are produced because transportation can be expensive and inefficient.  

Panelists also discussed how biotechnology could help strengthen rural economies by creating additional demand for agricultural products while supporting domestic manufacturing and reducing reliance on imported materials. 

At a time when farmers continue to face rising input costs and economic uncertainty, many speakers described biotechnology as an opportunity to diversify markets and create additional value streams tied to agriculture. 

The Biggest Barrier: Infrastructure 

Despite the enthusiasm surrounding biotechnology, one challenge surfaced repeatedly throughout the forum: the United States lacks enough infrastructure to scale many of these technologies. 

One speaker compared the process to baking cookies: 

• The lab stage is like baking in a home kitchen  

• Pilot facilities are like a larger commercial kitchen  

• Demonstration facilities represent scaling for broader production  

• Full manufacturing is the equivalent of getting products onto grocery store shelves  

The problem, panelists explained, is that many technologies struggle to move beyond the pilot stage because building manufacturing infrastructure is expensive and complex.  

The Integrated Fermentation and Biomanufacturing (IFAB) initiative was highlighted as one effort working to address this gap. Federally and state-funded investments are helping build shared infrastructure, including fermentation tanks and pilot facilities, so companies do not each need to independently build costly manufacturing systems from scratch. 

Several speakers stressed the need for additional investment in pilot facilities, demonstration infrastructure, feedstock processing, and manufacturing systems to help promising technologies successfully reach commercial scale. 

Without that investment, some companies may continue moving operations overseas to countries with lower costs and stronger infrastructure support. 

Research and Policy Will Shape the Future 

The conversation also focused heavily on the role of research and public policy in determining whether the United States can remain competitive in the growing bioeconomy. 

Panelists discussed federal initiatives supporting biomanufacturing, renewable fuels, and rural infrastructure, along with state-level investments designed to position regions like Illinois as leaders in agricultural innovation.  

At the same time, concerns were raised about declining agricultural research funding and increasing global competition from countries like China and Brazil. 

Several speakers emphasized that continued investment in agricultural research, crop science, and biotechnology will be critical to improving yields, increasing efficiency, and developing sustainable solutions that can meet future demand without dramatically expanding agricultural land use.  

Building Public Trust & Understanding 

Throughout the discussion, panelists repeatedly returned to one final theme: public trust and understanding matter. 

Many consumers still do not fully understand what biotechnology is, how bio-based products are made, or how they fit into everyday life. Speakers stressed the importance of transparency and communication that helps people connect these technologies to practical outcomes, whether that means safer manufacturing jobs, more sustainable materials, or new opportunities for farmers and rural communities. 

The post From Cornfields to Consumer Products: How Biotechnology Could Create New Opportunities for Farmers  appeared first on Farm Foundation.

Farm organizations were in different stages of a grant process when the US Department of Agriculture cut dozens of projects to help underserved farmers access land and capital. Agriculture leaders say the termination deals a blow to future farmers.

The post This program helped underserved farmers access land. Then USDA cut the funding appeared first on WPR.

Testing for avian flu among Wisconsin dairy cows is being reduced, thanks to recent changes at both state and federal levels.

The post Federal, state officials relax testing for avian flu on dairy farms appeared first on WPR.

More than 80 groups are pressing the heads of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Health and Human Services for emergency action to protect drinking water from nitrate contamination.

The post Wisconsin groups among more than 80 calling for emergency action on nitrate pollution appeared first on WPR.

Thirty-four cases of salmonella across 13 states have been linked to the outbreak, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The post Backyard poultry linked to salmonella infections in Wisconsin, across US appeared first on WPR.

The Strait of Hormuz, a vital trade passageway, remains virtually closed due to the war in Iran. That’s driven up the prices of key agricultural necessities, which could remain high into next year.

The post Steep fertilizer and fuel prices could squeeze US farmers for months to come, economists warn appeared first on WPR.

A new effort to force states to affirm the Trump administration’s views on DEI, transgender athletes and immigration when signing contracts with the U.S. Forest Service is threatening millions of dollars in wildfire grant funding and fire reduction projects on federal lands.

Some liberal states can’t sign the documents because the policies clash with state law, forestry experts say.

Already, at least one state is reporting that the new rules have stalled work to reduce wildfire risk and assist with projects on national forest lands. Other states say the requirements are so vague that they don’t know how to follow them. And some timber industry leaders believe the standoff could cut into their revenues.

“We’re kind of at an impasse,” said Washington State Forester George Geissler. “It’s already starting to slow down or shut down work.”

The update to the requirements governing federal partnerships comes even as many Western states brace for a brutal wildfire season, following a winter that brought record high temperatures and a paltry snowpack.

On Dec. 31, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins with little fanfare issued new general terms and conditions governing partnerships for the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Spelled out in dozens of pages of fine print are new restrictions that require partner organizations to pledge compliance with President Donald Trump’s executive orders.

The new conditions apply to all USDA agencies, but the department hasn’t yet said whether it will enforce them for food assistance programs.

The agency, in a news release announcing the changes, framed the new terms as an effort to streamline regulations, protect national security and “eliminate radical left ideology.”

The Department of Agriculture and the Forest Service did not grant Stateline interview requests.

At the Forest Service, which is housed within USDA, the new policy applies to a wide range of grants and contracts aimed at reducing wildfire risk, restoring forest health and boosting timber production.

Forestry veterans say the new conditions have created an impasse with some Democratic-led states.

“It is significantly disruptive,” said Robert Bonnie, who served as undersecretary of agriculture for natural resources and environment during the Obama administration. “It’s clearly targeted at Democratic states and Democratic partners.”

A coalition of 20 states and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit in March, claiming that the restrictions are unlawful. The lawsuit has largely focused on federal food assistance programs provided by the agency, such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and the Women, Infants, and Children Nutrition Program.

In an April court filing, Rollins said the new conditions had not yet been applied to food assistance programs, and that the agency had not made a “final decision” to cut off nutrition funding for states that don’t comply.

Forest Service programs

But the policy is already having an impact on some programs managed by the Forest Service.

Washington state has been unable to issue the latest round of Community Wildfire Defense Grants, a federal program that helps neighborhoods and towns reduce fuels and fortify homes in wildfire-prone areas.

Geissler, the state forester, said roughly 10 communities in Washington were set to receive large grants under the program, but the federal funding has been held up by the state’s refusal to sign the new terms and conditions.

“This is another example of the federal administration cutting off its nose to spite its face,” said David Perk, coordinator of the Washington State Lands Working Group, a coalition that weighs in on state forestry policies. “To add the additional layer of denying wildfire funding, that’s insult to injury.”

The stalemate also threatens work that the U.S. Forest Service increasingly relies on states and other partners to do in national forests. The agency has leaned heavily on tools, such as the Good Neighbor Authority, that enable state agencies to carry out wildfire mitigation, restoration and timber projects on federal lands. Many observers believe the recently announced Forest Service reorganization signals that states will play an even bigger role in the years ahead.

But now those partnerships are in jeopardy. According to Geissler, Washington state can’t sign new Good Neighbor Authority agreements due to the new conditions.

“We’re trying to sign off on agreements for another chunk of work, and we can’t get it signed,” he said. “If you are looking for work to be done by the state on federal lands, we’re not doing it. If we’re not able to sign, both sides lose.”

Washington state has spent millions of dollars on projects to reduce wildfire risk and improve forest health on national forest lands. With the new ideology requirements, the feds are essentially turning away free help, said Bonnie, the former natural resources official. That’s especially damaging, he noted, because Trump’s cuts to the Forest Service’s workforce and budget have further diminished what the agency can accomplish on its own.

The Trump administration is “damaging their own constituents,” he said. “There are a lot of conservative voters in rural Washington who want to see partnerships that reduce the probability of extreme wildfire. This will stop that. It makes absolutely no sense.”

Washington state is still working on Forest Service projects signed under previous agreements. But without new agreements, work on the ground could stall in six to eight months, Geissler said.

State responses

Nearly 20 state forestry officials contacted by Stateline did not respond or declined interview requests, citing the ongoing litigation and the need to maintain a working relationship with the Forest Service.

But one timber industry leader said Oregon was facing similar disruptions that prevented the state from signing new agreements with the Forest Service.

“This will lead to reduced revenues for (state forestry agencies),” Nick Smith, public affairs director with the American Forest Resource Council, a timber industry group, said in an email to Stateline. “As partners, our industry will be impacted if it disrupts or cancels current or future timber sales under these contracts.”

While most state forestry officials have been unwilling to publicly comment about the situation, several have filed legal declarations in support of the multistate lawsuit challenging the new terms and conditions.

Scott Bowen, director of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, wrote in a declaration that his agency has more than $87 million from active grants with the Forest Service. Those grants cover wildfire response, forest health, invasive species, urban tree canopy and revegetation, among other issues.

“If these funds were withheld, DNR would have to shut down critical capabilities to assist rural communities with fire preparedness and response,” Bowen wrote.

Bowen added that the Forest Service has already said one program, a grant to protect environmentally important forests from being converted to a nonforest use, will be subject to the new terms and conditions.

In the lawsuit, many state officials said that the new compliance requirements are so vague that they’re nearly impossible to follow. Several of the legal declarations note that the new conditions do not explain what it means to “promote gender ideology,” a practice the Department of Agriculture now seeks to ban.

Many states also objected to the agency’s requirement that no one in the country illegally obtain “taxpayer-funded benefits.” Josh Kurtz, secretary of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, noted in a declaration that it would be impossible to confirm that grants to reduce wildfire risk, expand urban tree canopy and improve forest health do not benefit Marylanders who lack legal immigration status.

Kevin Hood, executive director of Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics, a nonprofit that advocates for public employees, said the new terms are aimed at directing a greater share of federal funding to Trump’s political allies.

“You’re going to see a bifurcation where you’ll have red states getting grants and blue states won’t,” he said.

‘More questions than answers’

In March, the National Association of State Foresters sent a letter to Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz expressing concerns about the new terms and conditions. Jason Hartman, the group’s president and the state forester of Kansas, described a chaotic situation.

“To date, the (Forest Service) has not provided adequate guidance or interpretation of the new (terms and conditions),” he wrote. “National-level meetings between State Foresters and the Forest Service have resulted in more questions than answers. State Foresters around the country have been given differing instructions and interpretations in different geographic locations.”

Hartman noted at least one instance in which a timber sale totaling 80 million board feet was held up by the new conditions. (That’s enough to build roughly 5,000 homes.) He asked the Forest Service to delay the effective date of the new conditions until the agency could provide more clarity.

He also outlined another set of issues causing problems for states. One major complication, he said, is the requirement that states receive federal approval before issuing any subawards or contracts. That has created a massive bureaucratic hassle, he wrote, in “direct conflict” with the Forest Service’s reliance on state partnerships to cut red tape.

The new terms also require environmental reviews for projects to be completed before partnership agreements can be signed. But Hartman noted that states often assist in those very environmental reviews, which they won’t be able to do if they can’t sign the agreements first.

Wyoming State Forester Kelly Norris also noted that issue in an email to Stateline, saying she expected the Forest Service to update the environmental review section soon.

Stateline reporter Alex Brown can be reached at abrown@stateline.org.