The Congressional Black Caucus on Tuesday urged American corporations to condemn efforts to dilute Black voting strength, as Southern states eliminate congressional districts where most residents are Black.

The CBC’s attempt to mobilize the business community comes as Black representation in Congress potentially faces its most severe threat since the end of Reconstruction following the Civil War. But some business leaders have taken a friendlier tone with President Donald Trump, who backs the gerrymandering.

A U.S. Supreme Court decision in April, in a case called Louisiana v. Callais, sharply weakened the federal Voting Rights Act, which had blocked states from breaking apart majority-minority districts. It limited the use of race in redistricting, prompting several Southern states to advance new maps targeting these districts, which are mostly held by Black Democrats.

“These actions are not routine political exercises,” the letter reads. “They are coordinated efforts to silence Black voices at the ballot box and strip communities of representation in American democracy.”

The message is addressed to more than 200 corporations and business groups that signed on to a 2021 letter in support of voting rights, as well as an unnamed number of other corporate leaders. Among the signatories were Amazon, Apple, Cisco, Facebook, Intel, Microsoft, Nike, PepsiCo, Starbucks, Target, Tesla and Unilever USA. 

That letter called on Congress to update the Voting Rights Act, including changes that would restore the federal government’s ability to review changes to election and voting laws in states and local governments with a history of discrimination, a practice called preclearance that the Supreme Court effectively halted in 2013.

On Tuesday, the CBC said those companies should issue individual or joint public statements opposing efforts to dilute Black voting strength and dismantle protections in the Voting Rights Act.

The lawmakers also want companies to report on corporate political spending and relationships connected to attacks on voting rights and “discriminatory redistricting schemes.” Companies should accept an invitation to participate in a national gathering alongside civil rights leaders and advocates to discuss voting rights and Black political power, the lawmakers wrote.

The letter asks businesses to respond by June 9.

“Five years ago, corporations across America publicly affirmed that democracy, racial equity, and voting rights matter. Today, in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Callais decision, those commitments are being tested in real time,” Rep. Yvette Clarke, a New York Democrat who chairs the CBC, said in a statement. 

“Corporations that have profited from Black consumers, relied on Black workers, and benefited from Black communities cannot remain silent while Black political representation is dismantled in plain sight,” Clarke said. “Silence in this moment is not neutrality — it is complicity.”

Corporate leaders warm to Trump

But political attitudes in parts of corporate America, especially among tech firms, have shifted since 2021.

When businesses signed the July 2021 letter, they were acting after the May 2020 murder of George Floyd, a Black man, by a white police officer in Minneapolis, and the Jan. 6, 2021, storming of the Capitol by Trump supporters. Six years later, some titans of American business have taken a more conciliatory approach to Trump and the Make America Great Again movement.

Elon Musk, who leads Tesla, spearheaded the Department of Governmental Efficiency, or DOGE, initiative in 2025 that resulted in the firings and layoffs of thousands of federal workers. Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has spoken positively about the president. Jeff Bezos, Amazon’s CEO, called Trump “more mature” in his second term.

Trump has also led a push against diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. In March, the president signed an executive order targeting DEI practices by federal contractors. The directive followed another anti-DEI order in January 2025 that encouraged the private sector to “end illegal DEI discrimination and preferences.”

Since the Supreme Court’s decision in Callais, some Republicans have portrayed eliminating majority-minority districts as a constitutional imperative. The current districts should be tossed because they were drawn with their racial makeup in mind, they say.

“I don’t think race should be used to help a person because of his race, and I don’t think race should be used to harm a person because of his or her race,” Sen. John Kennedy, a Louisiania Republican, said at a Senate hearing on racial gerrymandering last week.

Rapid remaps

Since the release of the Callais decision on April 29, Florida and Tennessee have changed their maps and Louisiana is expected to follow soon. South Carolina lawmakers tried but failed to advance a new map and Alabama has taken steps to implement a 2023 gerrymander after the Supreme Court lifted a lower court order that had blocked it.

A panel of three federal judges on Tuesday issued a new order halting the Alabama map, which would likely force out one of the state’s two Black Democratic members of Congress if enacted. The judges found that the map was racially discriminatory, even in light of Callais. 

Alabama has appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.

“I applaud the three-judge panel for upholding the rule of law and reaffirming that racial discrimination has no place in our redistricting process,” Rep. Terri Sewell, an Alabama Democrat who also signed Tuesday’s CBC letter, said in a statement.

“While we know that this legal battle is far from over, today’s ruling sends a clear message: Black voters in Alabama cannot and will not be silenced.”

A growing number of states are reexamining how the criminal legal system treats pregnant and postpartum women behind bars.

This year, legislators in at least five states, including Kentucky, Ohio, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia, have considered legislation that would reshape how pregnant people are treated in jails and prisons. The measures vary, but some seek to expand eligibility for alternatives to incarceration during pregnancy, restrict or prohibit restraints during labor and delivery, and strengthen data and reporting requirements.

The Utah and Virginia bills were signed into law in March and April, respectively. In Utah, the new law restricts the shackling of pregnant and postpartum women, and requires state prisons and jails to track the number of pregnant people in their custody, as well as incarcerated mothers of children under 18.

In Virginia, one of the new laws requires correctional facilities to adopt lactation policies for pregnant and postpartum incarcerated people by December 2028. A separate new law allows courts to consider home or electronic incarceration programs for pregnant or postpartum women, with certain exceptions.

The Kentucky legislature adjourned for the year without passing a similar measure there, but the bills in Ohio and South Carolina are still under consideration. Ohio’s legislative session runs through the end of the year, while South Carolina’s continues until mid-May.

The latest legislative activity comes amid growing scrutiny of conditions faced by pregnant people in prisons and jails, as well as increased interest in nursery and community-based programs for mothers.

At least nine states have prison nursery programs, and about a handful of others are considering or developing similar programs.

In Wisconsin, the state Department of Corrections said in early April that the agency is still working to develop a program for incarcerated mothers and their newborns, but has faced challenges due to funding and facility capacity limits. 

The Justice-Involved Women and Children Collaborative at the University of Minnesota this spring launched what the group describes as the first comprehensive national database tracking state policies affecting pregnant people in custody.

The interactive tool documents more than 460 active policies across the country, including statutes on the use of restraints, access to abortion and access to menstrual products. 

The database fills a longstanding gap in information about how state systems regulate pregnancy in correctional settings. Policies vary widely not only from state to state, but sometimes among facilities within the same state. Federal data also is limited. The most recent national statistics on pregnant incarcerated people, which were released last year, reflect prison populations from 2023.

Stateline reporter Amanda Watford can be reached at awatford@stateline.org.

The U.S. House approved, 224-200, a five-year farm bill Thursday as members of Congress attempt to update major agriculture and nutrition policy after three years of extensions.

The bill would authorize subsidy and nutrition assistance programs through fiscal 2031. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated an earlier version of the bill would not meaningfully affect discretionary federal spending over an 11-year window, and would add $162 million in mandatory spending over the next six years.

Most Democrats opposed the bill, but 14 voted in favor. Three Republicans voted against. Six members did not vote.

The Democrats in favor were: Sanford Bishop of Georgia, Jim Costa and Adam Gray of California, Henry Cuellar and Vicente Gonzalez of Texas, Sharice Davids of Kansas, Donald Davis of North Carolina, Marcy Kaptur of Ohio, Kristen McDonald Rivet of Michigan, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez and Kim Schrier of Washington, Josh Riley of New York, Darren Soto of Florida and Gabe Vasquez of New Mexico.

The Republicans who voted against were: Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Andrew Garbarino of New York and Harriet Hageman of Wyoming.

Few policy changes

Because Republicans’ massive spending and tax cuts law last year made major changes to some U.S. Department of Agriculture programs, mainly the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program that helped about 1 in 8 Americans afford groceries in 2024, the farm bill passed Thursday was a “skinny” version and relatively short on major policy updates.

The bill would still have to pass the Senate, which has not yet introduced its version. 

Arkansas Republican Sen. John Boozman, who chairs the Senate Agriculture Committee, cheered House passage Thursday and said a Senate text would be released “in the coming weeks.”

“This is an important step toward updating long-overdue policies that support our farm families and strengthen rural communities,” he said of the House vote in a statement. “We’ve put more farm in the farm bill through the Working Families Tax Cuts (the GOP spending and tax cuts bill), and this legislation builds on that success.”

New authorizations needed 

Farm bills are typically written to last five years. But Congress last approved a version in 2018. Extensions of the 2018 version were enacted in 2023, 2024 and 2025.

House Agriculture Chairman Glenn “GT” Thompson, a Pennsylvania Republican, said the measure would still meaningfully update farm and food programs.

“It is more evident than ever that rural America needs a new farm bill now, not next year or next Congress,” he said. “Producers are operating under the third consecutive farm bill extension and the simple truth is the policies of 2018 are no match for the challenges of 2026.”

Agriculture Committee ranking Democrat Angie Craig of Minnesota opposed the bill, saying it did not address any of the pressing issues that farmers and SNAP recipients face. The bill does not help alleviate the rising costs farmers face from President Donald Trump’s tariffs and “locks in the $187 billion cut” to SNAP in last year’s spending law, Craig said.

“It doesn’t fix any of the underlying policy choices by Republicans and this administration that caused the problems in the first place,” she said, adding that  continuing the SNAP cuts put “more pressure on struggling Americans at a time when the cost of groceries and healthcare continues to grow.  

Craig said Thursday morning that the measure could have helped corn farmers by including a provision to allow gasoline made with 15% ethanol available all year. The product, known as E15, increases demand for corn, but has been limited in summer months because of the pollution it can cause in high temperatures. 

Thompson responded that the committee would consider a separate measure on year-round E15 in mid-May.

Local food, foreign food aid oversight

The bill does include some new provisions.

It would authorize $200 million for a new local food procurement program, to be used largely by food banks. 

It would move authority for foreign food assistance programs under USDA from the now-defunct U.S. Agency for International Development. 

It would raise the limit that individual farmers could borrow from USDA and expand rural development programs that fund substance abuse and mental health services.

Members voted Thursday morning for an amendment that removed a controversial provision to shield pesticide producers from legal liability to warn users of a risk of cancer. If it became law, the provision would have mooted a case argued before the U.S. Supreme Court this week related to a Missouri jury’s award to a user of Monsanto’s popular Roundup weedkiller who developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

“Going to make hunger worse”

Several Democrats slammed the bill, but seemed to take more issue with the “big beautiful” law Trump signed last July 4. The farm bill, Massachusetts Democrat Jim McGovern said, would not counteract the changes in that law.

“We are considering on the floor a five-year farm bill that, quite frankly, does nothing for our farmers and screws over poor people and maintains the nearly $200 billion in cuts to SNAP,” the top House Rules Committee Democrat said on the House floor Thursday. “It is going to make hunger worse in this country.”

Thompson said Democrats were too focused on what was not in the bill, rather than the provisions that enjoy bipartisan support.

“Today, you will hear some opposing comments made that this is a partisan bill and even more on what’s not in the bill,” he said at the outset of floor debate. “This bill is filled with good policy that is also overwhelmingly bipartisan.

WASHINGTON — State officials say they need more information from the Trump administration before they can fully implement new requirements for Medicaid, according to a survey released Thursday by KFF and the Georgetown University Center for Children and Families.

Republicans’ “big, beautiful” law made several changes to the state-federal health program for lower income people and some people with disabilities, including that enrollees between the ages of 19 and 65 work, participate in community service, or attend an education program for at least 80 hours a month.

The survey of Medicaid program officials from 43 states showed the people tasked with implementing the law have questions about how exactly they should determine if someone meets the new requirements or is exempt. 

“In addition to how to define medical frailty, states wanted additional direction in many areas including what qualifies as community service, how to calculate half-time school attendance, and what is considered a ‘significant relationship’ to qualify for the caregiver exemption,” the report states. “They also indicated they need guidance about what sources can be used for verification, whether self-attestation will be allowed if other sources are not available, and how long verification of exemptions remain valid.”

The law includes several additional carve-outs, including for Medicaid enrollees who are pregnant, have dependent children, are tribal community members or are in the foster care system, and for individuals released from incarceration in the last 90 days, among others.

The vast majority of state officials surveyed said they would implement the new requirement for work, education, or community service at the start of next year.

There are, however, a few states moving forward earlier. 

Nebraska plans to begin May 1, Montana on July 1 and Iowa officials said they will begin this year, though they haven’t provided a date, KFF said. Arkansas has planned a “soft launch” for July but won’t actually remove anyone from Medicaid for not meeting the new requirements until next year, according to the report.

Hardship exemptions

The KFF-Georgetown survey says that nearly all states will allow hardship exemptions for people in counties with higher unemployment; those who recently experienced a natural disaster; those who have been admitted to a hospital or nursing facility; or those who need to travel outside their community for medical care.

Indiana and Iowa are the only two states so far that don’t intend to allow any hardship exceptions from the requirement that Medicaid enrollees work, attend community service, or enroll in an education program, the report said. 

“Oklahoma is not adopting the exceptions for residents of counties with high unemployment or with a declared natural disaster while Missouri is not adopting the exception for residents of counties with high unemployment,” the report says. “New York is not planning to adopt the exception for individuals traveling outside their community for medical care. Twelve states had not made a decision.”

Look-back periods vary

Thirty-six states will look back one month when someone applies for Medicaid to determine whether they’re working, participating in community service, or enrolled in an education program. Indiana and Idaho will look back at the last three months before the person applied to determine whether they meet the new requirement. 

Thirty-four states will look back one month during the renewal process, which must happen at least every six months under the law. 

“Indiana and New Hampshire will check quarterly and at renewal to verify that enrollees meet the requirements every month between renewals,” according to the report. “Arkansas will also look back three months at renewal but is not planning quarterly checks. States that had not made a decision at the time of the survey included five states for application, six states for renewal, and seven states for more frequent checks.”

Amid a climate of uncertainty surrounding the future of federal funding for after-school programs, Wisconsin advocates, representatives from nonprofit organizations and local youth asked Democratic candidates for governor what they will do to support after-school programs.

Four of the seven major candidates for the Democratic nomination for governor participated in a forum Tuesday evening at the Goodman Center on Madison’s East Side, hosted by the Wisconsin Partnership for Kids. They included former Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes, state Rep. Francesca Hong (D-Madison), Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez and state Sen. Kelda Roys (D-Madison).

The hosts were from a coalition of organizations that work to improve early childhood education, literacy and economic mobility for children across the state. Some of the coalition’s goals include stabilizing access to child care and supporting out-of-school time programs.

Former Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation CEO Missy Hughes and U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, the frontrunner for the Republican nomination, did not respond to the invitation to participate, according to the hosts. Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley and former Wisconsin Department of Administration Secretary Joel Brennan had previous commitments. 

Jackie Scott with the Wisconsin Partnership for Kids told the Examiner that the organization wanted to ensure there was a forum where youth issues were at the center of the conversation. 

“There’s a huge gap and we wanted to make sure that kids are front and center in the conversations for the next leader because, it’s corny, but kids are our future,” Scott said. “Unfortunately, I feel like kids’ issues often take the back burner. There’s not a whole lot of conversation that actually involves kids and gives youth a voice.”

Catie Tollofson, the vice president of mission and programs at the Goodman Community Center, echoed that sentiment.

“Anytime we’re going to  elect an official, we want to make sure that those folks, if they’re representing us at a state level or any level, have youth issues as a part of what they are speaking about and thinking about and running on,” Tollofson said. 

During the forum, candidates took questions from kids as well as adult advocates. One of the first questions, from a 10-year-old girl, was about candidates’ favorite activity from when they were her age. Barnes said biking; Roys said attending camps through the Madison School & Community Recreation; Hong said sledding and Rodriguez said camping. 

Candidates were asked how they would help to strengthen or expand Wisconsin’s after-school programs. 

The conversation came as President Donald Trump has proposed a budget eliminating dedicated federal funding for the 21st Century Community Learning Centers (21st CCLC), which supports local school and community-based after school and summer learning programs. 

According to a 2023 report by the National Conference of State Legislatures, federal funding for the program has decreased by about  $10 million in inflation-adjusted terms since 2014. This is despite rising demand.

About 27 states in the U.S. have a dedicated funding stream for after-school and outside-of-schooltime  programs. Wisconsin is not one of those and its programs rely mostly on federal, local and philanthropic dollars. Last year many programs in the state were left in limbo when the Trump administration abruptly withheld funding. It eventually released the funds.

Candidates expressed support for the programs and said they would  provide state funding to keep them going.

Rodriguez said her child care plan, which would cap costs for families at 7% of their income and ensure a minimum wage for employees, would also cover after-school programs.

“You should treat it like the infrastructure that it is… My plan also indicates that child care providers should be paying at a minimum of $18 an hour, and this would include many different types of child care,” she said, including after-school programming.

Hong said she would support investing state dollars into afterschool programs. She said that access to grants or funding would need to be equitable, meaning it should be easy to find and apply for and available to those working in the programs. 

“After-school time is mental health care. After-school time is healthcare. It is a way for kids and our communities to be able to take care of each other, and it should have its own dedicated funding stream from the state,” Hong said. 

Roys said she breathed a sigh of relief when she got a notification this week that her 8-year-old and 4-year-old got into their after-school programs. 

“I think about how much scrambling it would mean if they hadn’t gotten in,” Roys said. “Families with means can pay for all types of enrichment, things that should be basic rights for children… to do sports, to be able to socialize with friends, to have help with homework and tutoring, to do theater and art — that should be available to every single child. Instead we ration it based on where you live and based on whether or not your parents pay for it.” 

Roys said that publicly funded after-school programs would help close the gap. “This has become so critical, given what the federal government has put on the chopping block,” she said. “We cannot leave Wisconsin children vulnerable to those kinds of cuts.”

An America After 3PM survey of Wisconsin families conducted by the AfterSchool Alliance found that for every child in an after-school program, there are four who cannot access a program. 

According to the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, about 20,000 Wisconsin students are served annually at 168 sites that receive 21st Century CLC funding. 

Barnes said the state is in a care crisis due to the cuts to education implemented under former Republican Gov. Scott Walker and the Republican-led Legislature. He noted that he participates in Milwaukee recreational programs. 

“We already know what works. We have well functioning systems in place in the state. What we don’t have are well funded systems in this state that contribute to the growth and development of our children,” Barnes said. “That’s what we have to prioritize immediately.” 

Scott noted that Wisconsin is surrounded by states that are investing in child care, including in Michigan where $75 million in state grants are going towards before-school, after-school and summer programming in the 2025-26 fiscal year. 

“I was really excited that pretty much every single candidate acknowledged the fact that this is a broken system in Wisconsin, and that we don’t choose to invest in our kids,” Scott said. “We put that burden on philanthropy or we put that burden on local governments and it’s just not something that could be carried alone by philanthropy and local governments.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

WASHINGTON — Tucked into President Donald Trump’s new budget request is a plan that could dramatically change — and, critics say, slash — how much money and help states provide to people needing jobs and training.

Trump’s latest budget proposes a federal “Make America Skilled Again’’ grant that would combine a dozen current programs and provide $3.4 billion in spending for certain employment and training programs, down from $4.65 billion anticipated this fiscal year.

The president’s plan would fund block, or general, grants to states, which could then tailor the spending to employment and training needs.

There’s no formula in the budget proposal detailing how or where the money would be distributed, other than a requirement that at least 10% be spent on an apprenticeship program and 3% on innovations. The secretary of the Department of Labor could also reserve up to 0.75% on “program accountability” and technical support.

Congressional Republicans are moving ahead with other ways to fund, and in some cases revamp, federal job programs, though they showed little interest in Trump’s MASA proposal that was also in his budget request last year.

The Trump plan

The MASA effort is another in a series of administration initiatives aimed at streamlining job training programs’ administrative costs and making them more responsive to changes in the workplace.

The Labor Department referred questions about the plan to the Office of Management and Budget, which did not respond to questions.

At the National Skills Coalition, an advocacy organization for skills-based training, Megan Evans saw the MASA effort as a way of making deep cuts that ultimately hurt workers and employers, she said in an interview.

“The administration says it’s trying to streamline,” said Evans, the coalition’s senior government affairs manager. “But in reality it’s combining deep cuts with risky consolidations and rollbacks.”

The White House last year issued a detailed report and a video on its strategy, outlining how “workforce programs are fragmented across agencies, stifled by red tape, and too often misaligned with the skills employers need.”

These issues, it said, “pose particular risks as the United States advances toward a bold reindustrialization agenda and navigates the transformational impact of AI (artificial intelligence) on the workforce.”

In the budget released this month, the administration called the program “a key part of the administration’s strategy to fill the growing demand for skilled trades and other occupations,” along with some other programs, including the tax cuts enacted last year.

Changes in getting money and help

While MASA aims to reduce administrative costs, a long-sought goal of administrators across the country, popular programs would be consolidated under the block grant, including several with strong constituencies. 

Among them are programs for adult training and employment, youth training and employment, the Labor Department’s Re-integration of Ex-Offenders program, Native American programs and others.

The National Skills Coalition saw trouble in folding these programs into a single grant.

“These programs weren’t created in a vacuum,” it said in a blog post last year. “They each serve distinct populations.”

Merging them would be “making it harder for people to access training that fits their lives and needs,” the group said.

It also had doubts about whether block grants would in fact be more efficient.

“By combining multiple workforce programs into a single grant, it becomes significantly harder to track program outcomes, monitor equity and assess whether specific populations–such as veterans, youth, people with disabilities, or former incarcerated people–are being effectively served,” the coalition said.

Some state and local officials share the concern. 

“Washington state is already facing significant budget shortfalls, and this proposal would further widen that gap,” said Marisol Tapia Hopper, director of strategic partnerships & funding at the Workforce Development Council of Seattle-King County.

She said combining the programs into a block grant “functions as a reduction in workforce investment, applying a one-size-fits-all approach to a system that is already chronically underfunded.” 

The National Governors Association, a bipartisan group comprising all the nation’s governors, has taken no position on the proposal.

“Workforce training is a huge bipartisan priority for governors,” said Jack Porter, NGA program director for workforce development & economic policy.

“Federal support is critical to standing up effective workforce programs, but the federally funded workforce system as it stands now comes with a lot of red tape that shifts time and focus away from the goal, which is (to) provide workers with training,” he said.

Congressional reluctance

Congress has shown little enthusiasm for the administration’s consolidation.

Earlier this month, the Republican-led U.S. House Education and Workforce Committee proposed a comprehensive job training blueprint.

Among its ideas: providing funding for on-the-job learning and strengthening the system that holds state and local workforce boards responsible “for delivering positive outcomes for workers and job seekers.”

The bill would have adult education programs governed by the Labor Department. The aim would be to “connect adult education to apprenticeships, sector partnerships, and employer-led training especially as artificial intelligence reshapes skill demands.”

Included in the legislation, which a committee spokeswoman says is clearly “in line with the broad goals proposed in the president’s budget,” is a Make America Skilled Again pilot program.

It would permit states to apply to combine different workforce funding streams and then spend them on programs that best suit their needs.

The bill, said committee Chairman Tim Walberg, R-Mich., in a statement, “modernizes a struggling and underutilized workforce development system, delivering reforms that strengthen participant outcomes and ensure greater accountability for taxpayer dollars.”

In the U.S. Senate, Republicans began pushing changes that will help people get access to current programs.

The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Republicans’ aim is to “increase Americans’ access to job opportunities by eliminating red tape, increasing flexibility, and modernizing the workforce system.”

The goal is to create one-stop centers where people can get information about jobs and training. The measure would “help Nebraskans find great jobs more efficiently,” said Sen. Pete Ricketts, a Nebraska Republican who co-sponsored the bill.

Spending bill season

At the moment, Democrats and Republicans appear deadlocked on how to proceed. The House Appropriations Committee plans to write labor spending legislation in June. The Senate has not announced a schedule. 

The partisan lines are forming.

The Trump labor budget “attacks workers and small businesses by undermining workforce development programs at the Department of Labor,” said Rep. Bobby Scott, D-Va., top Democrat on the House workforce panel, in a statement.

Without the specific programs, he said, “many workers will struggle to provide for their families.”

Walberg sees a need for big change.

“The workforce is evolving rapidly, and legislation designed over a decade ago is no longer meeting today’s demands,” he said.

Applications are now open for FarmPath, a national, multi-year program designed to make farming more accessible and achievable for aspiring and beginning farmers across the United States.

The program is supported by The Mosaic Company Foundation for Sustainable Food Systems and The PepsiCo Foundation whose investments reflect a shared focus on helping to strengthen the next generation of farmers and build a more resilient food system.

FarmPath is grounded in a simple reality: as many U.S. farmers approach retirement, the sector needs a new generation of skilled producers. Yet beginning farmers often face barriers including limited access to land, capital, business planning skills, agronomic knowledge, and mentorship.

By investing in these new farmers, FarmPath helps support stronger rural, urban, and suburban economies, strengthens food security, and builds a more diverse and resilient agricultural community.

The free, three-year program provides practical education in best practices for resilient agriculture and farm management, access to experienced mentors, and connection to a national network of professionals working across food and agriculture. FarmPath integrates training in production skills with in-depth instruction on the systems, markets, and decisions that shape long-term success.

“American agriculture is entering a new era, with generational shifts, growing interest in diversification, and new market opportunities, including regenerative production and regional food systems,” said Shari Rogge-Fidler, President and CEO of Farm Foundation. “Through structured business training, mentorship, professional networks, and up to $10,000 in implementation funding, FarmPath is Farm Foundation’s direct investment in a new generation of farmers prepared to meet this moment in American agriculture.”

The Mosaic Company executes its mission to help the world grow the food it needs by delivering critical crop nutrient products to customers in 40 countries around the globe. The company is committed to advancing global food security through coordinated action and strong collaboration with partners and stakeholders. For over two decades, The Mosaic Company Foundation for Sustainable Food Systems has partnered with local organizations, farmers and communities in the U.S., Brazil and India to identify and maximize their potential, emphasizing sustainability, resilience, and entrepreneurship.

“We’re excited to support a program that puts practical, farmer‑focused learning front and center. Our work with young and smallholder farmers in India and Brazil shows that when farmers build skills, confidence, and resilience in the face of a changing landscape, they’re better equipped to thrive long term.” Ben Pratt, president of The Mosaic Company Foundation for Sustainable Food Systems.

As one of the world’s leading food and beverage companies, PepsiCo’s business is rooted in agriculture with more than 50 crops and ingredients sourced from over 60 countries. To help support the farmers that grow these crops, the PepsiCo Foundation has worked alongside Farm Foundation through previous partnerships including Field to Future. Now, to continue helping farmers thrive, the PepsiCo Foundation is building on previous work with Farm Foundation through FarmPath.

Monica Bauer, SVP Social Impact, PepsiCo, said, “As the backbone of our communities, farmers play a vital role in driving local economies and helping families access nutritious and affordable food. Alongside Farm Foundation, we’re excited to support the next generation of farmers who will continue to help strengthen food systems for generations to come. Together, we can help expand access to the resources needed to support long-term success for new farmers.”

How to Apply

FarmPath is open to participants from a wide range of backgrounds, including farm-raised innovators, urban and community growers, career changers, those curious about farming as a career path, and early-stage farmers seeking to diversify or strengthen their operations. The program includes a flexible virtual learning model and an online peer community designed to accommodate various schedules nationwide.

Applications are open through March 23, 2026. This application cycle is the only entry point into the current three-year program. Up to 300 participants will be selected for Year One, with competitive progression into Years Two and Three. Participants must complete Year One to be eligible for advancement.

Additional information, eligibility details, and the application are available at FarmPath.org

---

About the Partners

The Mosaic Company Foundation for Sustainable Food Systems supports well-defined, transformational investments in food and nutrition security, sustainable agricultural productivity growth, and community development located in India, Brazil, and the United States. The Foundation is a tax-exempt private foundation described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. The Foundation is funded through contributions from The Mosaic Company.

The PepsiCo Foundation, the philanthropic arm of PepsiCo, invests in the essential elements of a sustainable food system with a mission to support thriving communities. Working with non-profits and experts around the globe, we’re focused on helping communities obtain access to food security, safe water and workforce development opportunities. We strive for tangible impact in the places where we live and work—collaborating with industry peers, local and international organizations, and our employees to affect large-scale change on the issues that matter to us and are of global importance. Learn more at www.pepsicofoundation.com. Follow us on LinkedIn.

The post FarmPath Seeks 300 New and Aspiring Farmers for Free, National Program appeared first on Farm Foundation.

Farm Foundation announces two new cohorts that reflect its continued investment in developing future leaders across food, agriculture, and agricultural policy. The January 2026 Cultivators cohort and the 2026 USDA Economic Research Service (ERS) Agricultural Scholars cohort represent students from institutions nationwide who will engage with Farm Foundation programs in distinct yet complementary ways.

The Cultivator Program provides an exclusive opportunity for outstanding undergraduate and graduate students in agriculture to engage directly with senior leaders and policy discussions shaping the future of the food and agriculture system. Cultivators attend the Round Table and present their research alongside industry, government, and nonprofit executives.

Farm Foundation offers two Cultivators cohorts each year, with each cohort aligned to one of the organization’s biannual Round Table meetings. The January 2026 Cultivators cohort will participate in the Farm Foundation Round Table held January 14–16, 2026, in El Paso, Texas.

January 2026 Cultivators Cohort

• Freweyni Abrha– University of Maryland Eastern Shore
• Vera Adabrah-Danquah – Kansas State University
• Dawood Atta – University of Florida
• Jacob Lionberger – University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
• Menglin Liu – University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
• Marisol Olivas – New Mexico State University
• Kimberly Okpah – University of Maryland Eastern Shore
• Yi Wang – Purdue University

Through the Cultivator Program, participants gain exposure to high-level dialogue on emerging agricultural issues while building professional networks with leaders across the public and private sectors.

Learn more about the Cultivator Program

---

2026 USDA Economic Research Service Agricultural Scholars

Farm Foundation, in collaboration with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service (ERS), also announces the 2026 Agricultural Scholars cohort. This fully funded, 12-month professional development program is designed for graduate students pursuing agricultural economics or related agricultural policy fields.

The Agricultural Scholars Program provides immersive, hands-on exposure to applied policy and economic analysis. Scholars work closely with ERS senior analysts while developing a deeper understanding of agricultural policy, commodity markets, agricultural finance, and related disciplines.

Scholar Experience

During the program year, Scholars will:

• Partner with an ERS senior analyst for year-long mentorship
• Conduct and present capstone research to ERS economists and receive expert feedback
• Participate in Farm Foundation Forums held virtually throughout the year
• Engage with senior leaders across agribusiness, government, and trade associations

Scholars will also attend several flagship events, including:

• Farm Foundation Round Table – January 14–16, 2026 (El Paso, TX)
• USDA Agricultural Outlook Forum – February 19–20, 2026
• AAEA Annual Meeting – July 26–28, 2026 (Kansas City, MO)
• WASDE/Capstone Trip – October/November 2026 (Washington, D.C.), including visits to USDA, Capitol Hill, agribusinesses, and commodity groups

2026 Agricultural Scholars Cohort

• Eric Belleville – The Ohio State University (AEDE)
• Hence Duncan – Oklahoma State University
• Elizabeth Dworkin – Iowa State University
• Parthu Kalva – University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
• Asa Dolbow Vann – Purdue University

The Agricultural Scholars Program seeks to deepen participants’ understanding of production agriculture, agribusiness, and government, strengthening the pipeline of future agricultural economists and policy leaders.

Learn more about the Agricultural Scholars Program and individual profiles

The post Announcing the Farm Foundation January 2026 Cultivators and 2026 Agricultural Scholars Cohorts appeared first on Farm Foundation.

On May 20, 2025, Farm Foundation brought together leaders from across the agriculture sector at our Innovation and Education Campus (IEC) in Libertyville, Illinois, for a critical conversation about the future of our food and agriculture system.

Kicking off the day were two U.S. Secretaries of Agriculture, one Democrat, one Republican, who set the tone for a nonpartisan dialogue grounded in collaboration. Together, farmers, agribusiness leaders, researchers, and policymakers explored how to strengthen the U.S. food and ag system beyond today’s challenges and into the future.

The Summit defined what resilience in food and agriculture truly means:

A resilient food and agriculture system has the ability to produce food, even in the midst of changes and shocks, that sustains the planet and all people through access to safe, affordable, nutritious, and culturally relevant food.

From this shared vision came three key areas for continued collaboration:

1. Creating a policy innovation sandbox to explore new approaches to food and agriculture policy at the local, state, national, and global levels.

2. Advancing rural communities that are vibrant, thriving, and connected to opportunity.

3. Evolving the agricultural extension network to better serve today’s diverse, technology-driven, and rapidly changing sector.

The Summit was not just a conversation; it was a starting point for action. The resulting paper, Toward a Resilient Food and Agriculture Future, authored by Farm Foundation’s Agricultural Economic Fellow Dr. Sunghun Lim, captures the Summit’s insights and lays out a framework for the work ahead.

“The challenges facing agriculture today are deeply interconnected. The Summit was not just about identifying problems, it was about building momentum for actionable solutions,” said Dr. Sunghun Lim.

Now, we invite you to join us in taking the next steps. As we’ve done for the past 90 years, Farm Foundation will continue to organize thought partners and use our think tank/do tank model to drive progress in these three focus areas, sparking ideas and putting them into practice to create real impact.

The Innovation and Education Campus is a gathering place for these vital conversations. A space where anyone in the sector can host meetings, events, and trainings that help shape the future of food and agriculture.

Download the Executive Summary
Read the Full Report
Learn more about hosting an event at the IEC
Watch the video highlighting scenes from the Summit

Join us as we continue this work. Together we can create a more resilient future for food and agriculture.

The post Shaping a Resilient Future for Food and Agriculture appeared first on Farm Foundation.

Farm Foundation is proud to announce the second cohort of students selected for the Careers in Ag and Food Exploration (CAFE) Student Workshop. This immersive program offers undergraduate students from 1890 land-grant institutions an exclusive opportunity to dive into the diverse and evolving world of agriculture and food systems. 

Held at North Carolina A&T State University, the CAFE Workshop equips students with professional development tools, career exploration experiences, and networking connections that extend well beyond the classroom. Over the course of the program, participants engage in hands-on sessions and thought-provoking conversations with leaders across the agri-food value chain—helping them better understand the range of impactful careers available in this vital sector. 

“We are thrilled to welcome this talented group of students to the CAFE Student Workshop,” said Jenna Wicks, program manager at Farm Foundation. “The food and agriculture sector offers a wide range of career opportunities, and we are committed to helping the next generation explore these possibilities.” 

The CAFE Student Workshop is made possible through support from the SAPLINGS (System Approach to Promote Learning and Innovation for the Next GenerationS) grant—an initiative led in collaboration with North Carolina A&T and funded by an $18.1 million award from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture. 

We are honored to recognize the 2025 CAFE cohort: 

• Randall Gary, South Carolina State University 

• Jeronee Hinton, University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff 

• Gary Jarvis, North Carolina A&T State University 

• William Johnson, Tuskegee University 

• Sahara McMillan, Virginia State University 

• Jerricah Robinson, University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff 

• Cameron Shellman, Fort Valley State University 

• Jayla Silver, Tennessee State University 

• Markayla Watts, Tuskegee University 

These students represent a promising future across a variety of industries—bringing curiosity, passion, and a desire to grow.  

To learn more about the CAFE Student Workshop, visit: farmfoundation.org/cafe-student-workshop 

The post Spotlight on the 2025 CAFE Cohort: Discovering Opportunities in Food and Ag  appeared first on Farm Foundation.