When an Alabama clinic’s only OB-GYN left the state to provide abortion care in Colorado, the head of operations thought the facility would have to close.

But Robin Marty, executive director at WAWC Healthcare in Tuscaloosa, hired a doctor in August who she called a “unicorn” — someone who’s from Alabama and, after training outside of the state, returned home to practice medicine.

Marty said Alabama’s near-total abortion ban could cause physicians to practice elsewhere after they finish their residencies.

“Doctors don’t want to worry about surveillance, potential arrests and other legal issues,” she said.

A study published in March found that applications to medical residency programs in states with abortion restrictions have declined compared to states where abortion remained mostly legal. The findings are an “early signal” that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision nearly four years ago overturning federal abortion rights protections may exacerbate health care shortages, said lead author Dr. Anisha Ganguly.

A majority of doctors end up practicing medicine in states where they trained. Obstetrician and gynecology training programs typically take four years to complete, so the full scope of how abortion restrictions affect where physicians work after they complete their residencies remains to be seen.

Still, experts said the findings could spell trouble for the future of the reproductive health care workforce in states with abortion restrictions, some of which are already plagued with maternity care deserts.

Doctors say bans limit training, standards of care

OB-GYNs affiliated with Physicians for Reproductive Health who either trained or work in states with abortion bans told States Newsroom that restrictions after the Supreme Court decision hamstrung their ability to offer reproductive care and affected the education of medical residents.

Dr. Neha Ali grew up in Texas and trained there, too. But by the end of her OB-GYN residency’s second year, the state enacted SB 8, a six-week abortion ban that allowed residents in the state to sue providers or anyone who helped someone terminate a pregnancy. After the Dobbs decision in June 2022, a near-total abortion ban took effect in Texas.

“I knew I wanted to be an abortion provider before I started OB-GYN residency, and I chose to be in Texas for my residency training because I wanted to experience what that’s like in a state with barriers. But ultimately, the barriers became too large,” Ali said.

After she finished residency in 2024, Ali moved to Colorado, a state with strong abortion-rights protections, where she practices complex family planning.

Ali said she talks to medical students about her experience training in Texas, where she was not able to perform any dilation and evacuations — a second-trimester abortion procedure — during residency.

“I do think it’s very valuable to see what it’s like to be in a restrictive state and understand what that is like to be a provider there, but that doesn’t sell people on a residency for four years,” she said.

OB-GYN Dr. Louis Monnig trained in Kentucky before the state banned abortion.

“Making it difficult or putting up barriers to that training just limits the abilities of any doctor who provides reproductive care to have opportunities to get exposure and experience, and just get better at what they’re doing,” he said.

Monnig completed his residency in June 2023 and moved back to his home state of Louisiana because of his connections to the region and its health care disparities. “It felt like it was worth it to come back,” he said.

In October 2024, a Louisiana law classifying mifepristone and misoprostol as controlled dangerous substances took effect.

“It made me lose faith that lawmakers were doing any of these things to actually protect patients or patient safety,” he said.

The medications are used not only for abortions, but miscarriages and other conditions, too. The law has sowed confusion among health care providers and led some to practice emergency drills to access the drugs during obstetric emergencies, Louisiana Illuminator reported. Monnig said the law has “changed some of the day-to-day operational workflow for patient care,” especially for situations where misoprostol is used, such as labor induction and postpartum hemorrhaging.

Patients have faced issues when trying to get prescriptions filled: Pharmacists have called Monnig’s office to make sure a patient wasn’t having an abortion after he prescribed misoprostol for conditions such as cervical stenosis — when it’s difficult to insert a medical instrument in the cervical canal.

Drop in applications to ban states’ residency programs

Out of more than 22 million applications to 4,315 residency programs across the U.S., 67% were submitted to programs in states without abortion restrictions between 2018 and 2023, the new research showed. Thirty-three percent went to programs in states with restrictions.

Fewer women than men applied to train in states with abortion restrictions before the Supreme Court’s landmark abortion ruling, according to the study, and that disparity widened after more than a dozen states enacted abortion bans. The number of men applying to residency programs in states with abortion restrictions — mostly in the South and the Midwest — also decreased significantly.

“When there’s a decreased level of interest in these states, it suggests to us that there’s an evolving health care workforce shortage in these states,” said Ganguly, an internal medicine physician and an assistant professor at University of North Carolina’s Division of General Medicine and Epidemiology.

Many states with abortion bans — Idaho, Iowa and Georgia, for example — are also facing labor and delivery unit closures, particularly in rural areas where hospitals struggle with provider recruitment. Health officials in these states listed improvements to maternal health as a priority in their applications to the federal Rural Health Care Transformation Program, but solutions will take years to implement.

Shortages affect more than one specialty. Ganguly said OB-GYNs have historically offered the bulk of abortion-related care in the U.S., but it’s increasingly important in emergency medicine, family medicine and internal medicine. Primary care providers and emergency medicine doctors often diagnose pregnancy complications such as miscarriages, and internists help women who have chronic disease manage and plan for pregnancy.

Dr. Hector Chapa, an OB-GYN who teaches obstetrics and gynecology at Texas A&M University and is a member of the American Association of Pro–Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, took issue with the study’s approach.

“It’s essential to understand that this study is not specific to OB‑GYN residency programs, and by grouping OB‑GYN with family medicine, internal medicine and emergency medicine, the study assumes that all specialties are affected equally, despite their very different levels of involvement in abortion. This broad grouping risks introducing bias into the results,” he said in a statement.

Ganguly said her team did examine applications to OB-GYN residency programs in isolation to affirm findings of a decline among applicants in abortion-restricted states. Looking at other specialties, too, was meant to provide clarity about how bans affect the health care workforce more broadly.

OB-GYN education and the maternal health care workforce

The latest study adds to a body of research examining how the Supreme Court’s decision on abortion in 2022 affected training after medical school, particularly for those specializing in reproductive health care.

In the 2023-2024 application cycle, the number of applicants to training programs in states with abortion bans decreased by 4.2% compared to the previous cycle, while there was less than a 1% decrease in applications to residency programs in states where abortion is legal, according to the American Association of Medical Colleges.

In some states, abortion bans have definitively led to an exodus of OB-GYNs and maternal fetal medicine specialists. Idaho lost 35% of its doctors who provide obstetrics between August 2022 and December 2024, according to a study published in July.

Having reproductive health providers flee states with abortion bans is “devastating,” according to Pamela Merritt, the executive director of Medical Students for Choice.

“It’s a public health disaster that we’re going to see the consequences of decades to come,” she said.

Merritt’s organization has chapters at several medical schools in states with abortion bans. She said students are not getting adequate training, and some are even discouraged from discussing abortion.

In February, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center canceled a Medical Students for Choice chapter’s talk with an OB-GYN who wrote a book about providing abortion care later in pregnancy. School officials told The Texas Tribune hosting the event on campus was not in the university’s best interests.

“Everybody who graduates from medical school in Texas should know that there’s this thing called third-trimester abortion, that when the life of the mother is at risk, you legally can provide this care,” Merritt said.

Republican Gov. Greg Abbott signed legislation last year clarifying that doctors can offer pregnant women abortions during medical emergencies. The Texas Medical Board released guidelines for the abortion law this year, nearly half a decade after the state banned most abortions and at least four Texans died after being denied prompt abortion care, ProPublica reported.

Program helps residents in restrictive states get abortion care training

“Every single physician, nurse and health care provider needs to be educated about abortion care,” said Dr. Jody Steinauer, an OB-GYN and the director of the Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health at the University of California in San Francisco. “This is a huge crisis in OB-GYN specifically: All OB-GYNs must have the competence and the skill to safely empty the uterus. Even if the individual is personally uncomfortable providing abortion care, they have to be able to empty the uterus to save someone’s life in an emergency.”

Steinauer leads the Ryan Residency Training Program, which works with OB-GYN residencies across the country to ensure comprehensive abortion and family planning rotations. Nearly a dozen states lack Ryan programs, and most of them have near-total abortion bans.

She said residencies in states with abortion bans are struggling to make sure their students have the skills to provide abortion: “We’re at risk of having a whole generation of OB-GYN graduates who are not skilled to provide the care they need to provide.”

To remedy this issue, the Ryan Program has helped to establish 20 partnerships with schools in abortion-restrictive states to train OB-GYN medical residents in states with reproductive rights protections.

Steinauer said the rotations are between two to four weeks and complicated to plan, but they help doctors learn procedural skills, how to manage medication abortions and counseling.

The rotations also help OB-GYNs navigate pain management during obstetric procedures, communicate effectively with abortion patients and familiarize themselves with ultrasounds, she said. These skills are important for providing the full spectrum of reproductive health care, from inserting IUDs to treating miscarriages, the doctor said.

“It’s such a refreshing experience for them to be working in a state without a ban, and they get to see abortion as normal health care,” she said.

Stateline reporter Elisha Brown can be reached at ebrown@stateline.org.

When an Alabama clinic’s only OB-GYN left the state to provide abortion care in Colorado, the head of operations thought the facility would have to close. 

But Robin Marty, executive director at WAWC Healthcare in Tuscaloosa, hired a doctor in August who she called a “unicorn” — someone who’s from Alabama and, after training outside of the state, returned home to practice medicine. 

Marty said Alabama’s near-total abortion ban could cause physicians to practice elsewhere after they finish their residencies. 

“Doctors don’t want to worry about surveillance, potential arrests and other legal issues,” she said. 

A study published this month found that applications to medical residency programs in states with abortion restrictions have declined compared to states where abortion remained mostly legal. The findings are an “early signal” that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision nearly four years ago overturning federal abortion rights protections may exacerbate health care shortages, said lead author Dr. Anisha Ganguly.

A majority of doctors end up practicing medicine in states where they trained. Obstetrician and gynecology training programs typically take four years to complete, so the full scope of how abortion restrictions affect where physicians work after they complete their residencies remains to be seen. 

Still, experts said the findings could spell trouble for the future of the reproductive health care workforce in states with abortion restrictions, some of which are already plagued with maternity care deserts. 

Doctors say bans limit training, standards of care

OB-GYNs affiliated with Physicians for Reproductive Health who either trained or work in states with abortion bans told States Newsroom that restrictions after the Supreme Court decision hamstrung their ability to offer reproductive care and affected the education of medical residents. 

Dr. Neha Ali grew up in Texas and trained there, too. But by the end of her OB-GYN residency’s second year, the state enacted SB 8, a six-week abortion ban that allowed residents in the state to sue providers or anyone who helped someone terminate a pregnancy. After the Dobbs decision in June 2022, a near-total abortion ban took effect in Texas.

“I knew I wanted to be an abortion provider before I started OB-GYN residency, and I chose to be in Texas for my residency training because I wanted to experience what that’s like in a state with barriers. But ultimately, the barriers became too large,” Ali said. 

After she finished residency in 2024, Ali moved to Colorado, a state with strong abortion-rights protections, where she practices complex family planning.

Ali said she talks to medical students about her experience training in Texas, where she was not able to perform any dilation and evacuations — a second-trimester abortion procedure — during residency. 

“I do think it’s very valuable to see what it’s like to be in a restrictive state and understand what that is like to be a provider there, but that doesn’t sell people on a residency for four years,” she said.

OB-GYN Dr. Louis Monnig trained in Kentucky before the state banned abortion. 

“Making it difficult or putting up barriers to that training just limits the abilities of any doctor who provides reproductive care to have opportunities to get exposure and experience, and just get better at what they’re doing,” he said. 

Monnig completed his residency in June 2023 and moved back to his home state of Louisiana because of his connections to the region and its health care disparities. “It felt like it was worth it to come back,” he said. 

In October 2024, a Louisiana law classifying mifepristone and misoprostol as controlled dangerous substances took effect. 

“It made me lose faith that lawmakers were doing any of these things to actually protect patients or patient safety,” he said. 

The medications are used not only for abortions, but miscarriages and other conditions, too. The law has sowed confusion among health care providers and led some to practice emergency drills to access the drugs during obstetric emergencies, Louisiana Illuminator reported. Monnig said the law has “changed some of the day-to-day operational workflow for patient care,” especially for situations where misoprostol is used, such as labor induction and postpartum hemorrhaging. 

Patients have faced issues when trying to get prescriptions filled: Pharmacists have called Monnig’s office to make sure a patient wasn’t having an abortion after he prescribed misoprostol for conditions such as cervical stenosis — when it’s difficult to insert a medical instrument in the cervical canal.

Drop in applications to ban states’ residency programs

Out of more than 22 million applications to 4,315 residency programs across the U.S., 67% were submitted to programs in states without abortion restrictions between 2018 and 2023, the new research showed. Thirty-three percent went to programs in states with restrictions. 

Fewer women than men applied to train in states with abortion restrictions before the Supreme Court’s landmark abortion ruling, according to the study, and that disparity widened after more than a dozen states enacted abortion bans. The number of men applying to residency programs in states with abortion restrictions — mostly in the South and the Midwest — also decreased significantly. 

“When there’s a decreased level of interest in these states, it suggests to us that there’s an evolving health care workforce shortage in these states,” said Ganguly, an internal medicine physician and an assistant professor at University of North Carolina’s Division of General Medicine and Epidemiology. 

Many states with abortion bans — Idaho, Iowa and Georgia, for example — are also facing labor and delivery unit closures, particularly in rural areas where hospitals struggle with provider recruitment. Health officials in these states listed improvements to maternal health as a priority in their applications to the federal Rural Health Care Transformation Program, but solutions will take years to implement. 

Shortages affect more than one specialty. Ganguly said OB-GYNs have historically offered the bulk of abortion-related care in the U.S., but it’s increasingly important in emergency medicine, family medicine and internal medicine. Primary care providers and emergency medicine doctors often diagnose pregnancy complications such as miscarriages, and internists help women who have chronic disease manage and plan for pregnancy. 

Dr. Hector Chapa, an OB-GYN who teaches obstetrics and gynecology at Texas A&M University and is a member of the American Association of Pro–Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, took issue with the study’s approach. 

“It’s essential to understand that this study is not specific to OB‑GYN residency programs, and by grouping OB‑GYN with family medicine, internal medicine and emergency medicine, the study assumes that all specialties are affected equally, despite their very different levels of involvement in abortion. This broad grouping risks introducing bias into the results,” he said in a statement. 

Ganguly said her team did examine applications to OB-GYN residency programs in isolation to affirm findings of a decline among applicants in abortion-restricted states. Looking at other specialties, too, was meant to provide clarity about how bans affect the health care workforce more broadly.

OB-GYN education and the maternal health care workforce 

The latest study adds to a body of research examining how the Supreme Court’s decision on abortion in 2022 affected training after medical school, particularly for those specializing in reproductive health care. 

In the 2023-2024 application cycle, the number of applicants to training programs in states with abortion bans decreased by 4.2% compared to the previous cycle, while there was less than a 1% decrease in applications to residency programs in states where abortion is legal, according to the American Association of Medical Colleges. 

In some states, abortion bans have definitively led to an exodus of OB-GYNs and maternal fetal medicine specialists. Idaho lost 35% of its doctors who provide obstetrics between August 2022 and December 2024, according to a study published in July. 

Having reproductive health providers flee states with abortion bans is “devastating,” according to Pamela Merritt, the executive director of Medical Students for Choice. 

“It’s a public health disaster that we’re going to see the consequences of decades to come,” she said. 

Merritt’s organization has chapters at several medical schools in states with abortion bans. She said students are not getting adequate training, and some are even discouraged from discussing abortion. 

In February, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center canceled a Medical Students for Choice chapter’s talk with an OB-GYN who wrote a book about providing abortion care later in pregnancy. School officials told The Texas Tribune hosting the event on campus was not in the university’s best interests.   

“Everybody who graduates from medical school in Texas should know that there’s this thing called third-trimester abortion, that when the life of the mother is at risk, you legally can provide this care,” Merritt said. 

Republican Gov. Greg Abbott signed legislation last year clarifying that doctors can offer pregnant women abortions during medical emergencies. The Texas Medical Board released guidelines for the abortion law this year, nearly half a decade after the state banned most abortions and at least four Texans died after being denied prompt abortion care, ProPublica reported. 

Program helps residents in restrictive states get abortion care training 

“Every single physician, nurse and health care provider needs to be educated about abortion care,” said Dr. Jody Steinauer, an OB-GYN and the director of the Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health at the University of California in San Francisco. “This is a huge crisis in OB-GYN specifically: All OB-GYNs must have the competence and the skill to safely empty the uterus. Even if the individual is personally uncomfortable providing abortion care, they have to be able to empty the uterus to save someone’s life in an emergency.”

Steinauer leads the Ryan Residency Training Program, which works with OB-GYN residencies across the country to ensure comprehensive abortion and family planning rotations. Nearly a dozen states lack Ryan programs, and most of them have near-total abortion bans. 

She said residencies in states with abortion bans are struggling to make sure their students have the skills to provide abortion: “We’re at risk of having a whole generation of OB-GYN graduates who are not skilled to provide the care they need to provide.” 

To remedy this issue, the Ryan Program has helped to establish 20 partnerships with schools in abortion-restrictive states to train OB-GYN medical residents in states with reproductive rights protections. 

Steinauer said the rotations are between two to four weeks and complicated to plan, but they help doctors learn procedural skills, how to manage medication abortions and counseling. 

The rotations also help OB-GYNs navigate pain management during obstetric procedures, communicate effectively with abortion patients and familiarize themselves with ultrasounds, she said. These skills are important for providing the full spectrum of reproductive health care, from inserting IUDs to treating miscarriages, the doctor said. 

“It’s such a refreshing experience for them to be working in a state without a ban, and they get to see abortion as normal health care,” she said. 

WASHINGTON — Two top Democrats on a U.S. House panel Tuesday pushed back against “unprecedented” Trump administration guidance that they said essentially encourages states to try to bypass requirements on how they spend federal money intended to help people find job training and support — potentially opening states up to lawsuits.

The Democrats, in a letter provided exclusively to States Newsroom, said the U.S. Department of Labor is urging states to use waivers provided under the main federal workforce development law to disregard statutory requirements on how they spend money for employment activities.

Reps. Bobby Scott of Virginia and Alma Adams of North Carolina — the respective ranking members of the House Committee on Education and Workforce and its Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Development — urged Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer to “immediately revoke” the agency’s guidance, issued to state workforce agencies, administrators and other entities back in November. 

One of the main purposes of the workforce law, they observed, is to increase access to jobs for people with disabilities, older people and people who are homeless. The waivers suggested by the department would let states reel back their efforts to serve those groups of people, the Democrats said.

“We are deeply concerned that waiving these requirements under the guise of ‘innovation’ and ‘modernization’ will only incentivize the workforce system to stop doing what it is legally required to do: serve those with barriers to employment,” they wrote.

Five ‘strategic pillars’

The guidance from the department’s Employment and Training Administration calls on states to “request waivers of existing (Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act) statutory or regulatory requirements that can help overcome specific barriers to innovation and align with the five strategic pillars for workforce investment.” 

The 2014 law, known as WIOA, aims to boost the public workforce system and help those seeking jobs — particularly people who face barriers to employment — access training, employment and support services. The Labor secretary has the authority to waive certain statutory requirements under WIOA, though with certain limitations. 

Scott and Adams argued that many of the suggested waivers in the guidance “would allow states to reduce their efforts to serve individuals with barriers to employment, directly contradicting WIOA’s purpose.” 

President Donald Trump’s administration in August 2025 unveiled a workforce development strategy, through the departments of Labor, Commerce and Education, consisting of five “strategic pillars.”

The strategy stemmed from Trump’s April 2025 executive order, part of which sought to “consolidate and streamline fragmented Federal workforce development programs that are too disconnected from propelling workers into secure, well-paying, and high-need American jobs.” 

But the Democrats said the use of WIOA’s general waiver authority as a method for achieving the administration’s policy goals surrounding workforce development is without precedent.

“Upon review of all past approved waivers, it is clear that waivers were only used in response to discrete challenges that states or local areas faced in meeting some of the requirements stipulated under WIOA, either because of extenuating circumstances or for individual state efforts at reforms, not to achieve the Administration’s policy goals,” they wrote. 

Scott and Adams instead called on Chavez-DeRemer to work with Congress to pass a bipartisan bill that seeks to modernize WIOA. 

That measure would need to be reintroduced. The House passed it in April 2024, during the previous session of Congress, but the Senate did not.

The Department of Labor confirmed receipt of the letter Wednesday, but did not respond to a message seeking comment on its contents.

Cities and states are filing lawsuits and scrambling for alternative sources of money as the Trump administration seeks to shut off the federal funding spigot for biking and walking trails.

Since the early 1990s, there has been fairly consistent — and largely bipartisan — federal support for bicycle and pedestrian projects. Federal funding for such projects reached new heights during the Biden administration, as major spending measures in 2021 and 2022 included billions in new money for them.

But in his efforts to eliminate what he perceives as diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives — and to roll back anything associated with his predecessor — President Donald Trump has targeted hundreds of millions in federal grants for biking and pedestrian projects. And further cuts could be coming.

The broad tax and spending measure Trump signed last summer rescinded $2.4 billion from the Biden administration’s Neighborhood Access and Equity Program, money included in the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act to address long-standing safety issues stemming from past infrastructure projects, including interstate highways that split minority communities.

Of that total, at least $750 million was specifically earmarked for trails, walking paths and bike lane projects, according to data on grant recipients collected by Rails to Trails Conservancy, a nonprofit that advocates for trails and the construction of multiuse paths in abandoned railroad corridors.

Mark Treskon, a principal research associate at the nonprofit Urban Institute, said the administration seems to view bike and pedestrian trails as “a policy thing that people on the left like,” and is cutting funding as a “knee-jerk reaction” to former President Joe Biden’s policy priorities.

But Nate Sizemore, a spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Transportation, said the Trump administration is simply “getting back to basics” by “building the essential infrastructure needed to safely move people and commerce.”

“As grant programs become available for applicants, we will ensure that every taxpayer dollar is reinvested into rebuilding the roads and bridges our economy demands. … This decision reflects a significant shift away from the previous administration’s costly social and climate initiatives that deprioritized the needs of American drivers and increased congestion risks,” Sizemore wrote in an email.

Already reeling from the $750 million in cuts included in Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, cities and states that are counting on federal money for biking and pedestrian projects are worried about further cuts when Congress reauthorizes a broad transportation funding law that expires on Sept. 30. Biden’s 2021 infrastructure measure boosted the amount of money available for bike and pedestrian projects under that law.

“Everything is on the table, and there’s lots of risks to not only some of these grants that have been given under the last transportation bill … but it also implicates programs that are like the bread and butter of building trails, walking and biking infrastructure that have been around for many decades,” said Kevin Mills, vice president of policy at Rails to Trails Conservancy.

“We’ve heard warning signs from the administration, from leaders in Congress and from the heads of state transportation departments that they are looking to focus more on cars and less on active transportation, and sometimes less on transit as well.”

Seeking alternatives

In the aftermath of last year’s cuts and uncertainty over the future of federal funding, some states and cities have seen their projects completely stall, while others have found ways to move forward while decreasing their reliance on federal support.

In Connecticut, Rick Dunne, the executive director of the Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments, the federal metropolitan planning organization in that area of Connecticut, said the Trump administration pulled $5.7 million in funding to build around 9 miles on a 42-mile trail project known as the Naugatuck River Greenway Trail last September.

“It would have leveraged a whole bunch of state money and local dollars to build these sections,” Dunne said, noting that the council was hoping to use the federal funds to get matching dollars locally. “It would have advanced all of the activities on the trail and built major sections using other state, federal and local funding for construction.”

Dunne said Connecticut is limited in how it raises transportation funds because it doesn’t have counties.

“It’s either paid for by those small local towns, 10,000 to 20,000 people, or it’s paid for by the state,” Dunne said. “But once we lose the federal funding, then we start losing some of the state funding and local funding that would have matched it.”

Dunne said the council has not received any further communication from the U.S. Department of Transportation.

In Albuquerque, New Mexico, Terry Brunner, director of the city’s Metropolitan Redevelopment Agency, said the Trump administration last September pulled an $11.5 million grant to build part of a 7.5-mile pedestrian and bike lane around the city’s downtown.

The city decided to sue the administration in November to get those funds back, and the case is still wrapped up in court.

“We’re hoping we get a positive outcome on the lawsuit,” Brunner said. “We’ve also got a backup plan to ask for another federal funding source, or try to get funding from the state of New Mexico to the city of Albuquerque to complete the section, because we were about 90% done with the design of this trail.”

Brunner said Albuquerque has one of the highest pedestrian and cyclist death rates in the country, so getting people off the streets onto a safe trail is a priority for the city.

“I don’t think they’re going to stop us, but they’ll delay us,” he said, noting that the city is lucky because the state is offering funding and that the city budget may have some flexibility.

“Historically, we’ve always had a good partnership in Albuquerque with the federal government, and this is taking away a little bit of that shine and making us feel as if the federal government just really doesn’t care about Albuquerque.”

Projects in Republican-led states

The Trump administration also rescinded a $147 million grant for Jacksonville, Florida, to complete the 30-mile urban Emerald Trail.

Kay Ehas, CEO of Groundwork Jacksonville, the city’s nonprofit partner in building the Emerald Trail and restoring Hogans and McCoys creeks, says the group is continuing to work with the city “to identify funding to replace the federal grant that was rescinded last year.”

“We are enlisting the support of corporate and private donors to fund design, which keeps the project moving while we seek government dollars for construction,” Ehas told Stateline.

Meanwhile, in Georgia, the Atlanta Regional Commission is continuing to plan and develop Flint River Gateway Trails, said Josh Phillipson, principal program specialist at ARC. The 31-mile network of bike and pedestrian paths would connect communities along the Flint River in the southern portion of the metro Atlanta area. The commission tapped into the area’s annual allocation of federal transportation funding to cover the cost of the $1.5 million master planning effort, which includes a 20% local match from ARC, despite losing a $65 million federal grant.

“We are not doing anything on the construction because we don’t have those dollars at this point,” Phillipson said. “We’re stepping back a little bit more into our traditional role of doing the long-range planning, but we’re going to be sticking with this project, committed for the next few years.”

Mills, of Rails to Trails Conservancy, lamented the loss of the Neighborhood Access and Equity grants, which would have helped areas “where historic transportation investments had split communities in two,” cutting off residents from economic opportunities and their neighbors.

In Atlanta, for example, Phillipson said the trails project was meant to “bridge over core infrastructure decisions of the last century that were overwhelmingly impacting more diverse communities,” making it “difficult now to walk or ride a bike between two adjacent communities.”

Treskon, of the Urban Institute, said cities and states will be hard-pressed to replace all the federal money they lost.

“It’s a pretty big hit across the board for the places that had built that into their financial plans,” he said.

Stateline reporter Shalina Chatlani can be reached at schatlani@stateline.org.

The U.S. House Agriculture Committee advanced a sweeping farm bill early this month, attempting to revive Congress’ stalled effort to rewrite the nation’s agriculture law the same way it’s been done for decades.

But the vote also exposed the fragile coalition that will determine whether the legislation can ever move forward. 

Those who watch the process closely told States Newsroom they are not sure a new farm bill will be enacted, given the rupture in the traditional alliance that has in the past successfully brought together agriculture interests and anti-hunger advocates to support farm bills across party lines.

Historically, farm bills have brought together a diverse coalition of advocates and lawmakers across party lines. The arrangement dates back to the 1973 farm bill, when Congress first combined nutrition programs with farm subsidies to build a coalition strong enough to pass the legislation. The sweeping legislation now includes food and nutrition programs, energy, conservation, and rural development, as well as farm support and crop insurance. 

Now, cuts and changes in the nation’s biggest nutrition program, which could impose major new financial burdens on states, have been made by Republicans completely outside the usual farm bill process. This added to changes Democrats made in 2022, when they skipped the farm bill and used budget reconciliation to increase funding for climate-friendly farm conservation programs — though it is the food aid cuts that have most roiled the current debate.

These recent shifts could fundamentally change how the farm bill moves through Congress, said Christopher Neubert, deputy director of the Swette Center for Sustainable Food Systems at Arizona State University. He is also a former Democratic staffer on both the Senate Agriculture and Budget committees.

“It’s a careful balance …. but the farm bill was one thing that felt kind of certain,” Neubert said in an interview. “Now we’re entering a new period that I think does make a lot of people uneasy.”

“Unless there’s a real push to take a look at some of the serious challenges that exist and meaningfully address them, it might be very difficult to get a five-year farm bill across the finish line,” Neubert said.

Policy and funding together

The Agriculture Committee approved its version of the farm bill in a 34–17 vote March 5, following a markup that stretched more than 20 hours and featured sharp partisan disputes, particularly over the previous cuts to nutrition programs.

The legislation would set policy and funding levels for major food, agriculture and conservation programs for the next five years. The text and a title-by-title summary of the 802-page bill can be found here. 

The farm bill’s five-year timeline in the past gave some certainty and planning ability to farmers and ranchers, while bringing lawmakers and stakeholders back to the table periodically to reexamine the programs.

Congress last passed a farm bill in 2018, which expired in 2023. Since then, lawmakers have kept many programs running through temporary extensions, as negotiations over new versions fell through.

In the meantime, Congress made some of the largest changes to farm bill programs outside the normal reauthorization process – a major shift that has disrupted the usual process.

Last year’s GOP spending and tax cuts package, known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” reshaped nutrition funding, cutting the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, formerly known as food stamps. 

SNAP, administered by states, is the nation’s largest anti-hunger program. It provides monthly, income-based benefits to help low-income individuals and families purchase groceries. Democrats have widely criticized the changes to the program.

Some Democrats do sign on 

Even so, the House Agriculture Committee vote showed some bipartisan support. 

Seven Democrats joined Republicans in backing the legislation: Reps. Jim Costa of California, Sharice Davids of Kansas, Don Davis of North Carolina, Gabe Vasquez of New Mexico, Adam Gray of California, Kristen McDonald Rivet of Michigan and Josh Riley of New York. 

That was slightly more bipartisan than when the committee advanced a farm bill two years ago. Only four Democrats supported a measure that included some SNAP cuts within the farm bill.

Among those crossing party lines this year was Rivet, a freshman lawmaker and member of the moderate New Democrat Coalition.

Rivet hosted a press event on March 10 at a Saginaw County farm to promote the bill, highlighting the balancing act some moderate Democrats may face if the legislation reaches the House floor in an election year. 

“Farmers need solutions and certainty,” Rivet said, noting that she backed the bill because of provisions related to disaster relief, crop insurance and specialty crop support.

Still, she acknowledged the legislation will need changes as it moves forward.

“I was excited to be able to vote ‘yes’ on this farm bill,” Rivet said. “But I need to say that the bill is not perfect. We do need to reverse the devastating cuts to SNAP for hungry kids and families.”

Restoration of SNAP funding resisted

The debate over SNAP and other nutrition programs loomed over much of the committee’s work and will continue to be a major factor as the legislation moves forward. 

“The historic cuts to SNAP jeopardize the path forward for this bill and future farm bills,” Davids said during the committee debate.

Democrats offered multiple amendments to restore SNAP funding, but Republicans did not support any.

Scott Faber, senior vice president for government affairs at the liberal-leaning Environmental Working Group and a longtime farm policy advocate, said the longstanding alliance between those who back SNAP and farm supporters helped Congress pass farm bills for decades even as fewer Americans lived in rural communities. 

But he argues that the recent policy decisions have effectively dismantled that agreement. The cuts to nutrition programs in last year’s budget reconciliation bill helped offset new investment in farm subsidies, which Faber and other advocates contend go disproportionately to large farmers and do little to support smaller farms.

“Republicans chose to blow up the farm bill coalition in the one big, beautiful bill …so if Congress fails to pass another farm bill ever again, it will be Republicans who rightfully will bear the blame,” Faber said in an interview.

Faber called the political shift around the farm bill “a historic once-in-a-generation miscalculation by the farm lobby that will, in the long run, undermine public support for the farm safety net.”

Full effects of SNAP cuts still to come

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the SNAP changes would reduce federal SNAP spending by roughly 20% through 2034 while imposing stricter work requirements and shifting some program costs to states.

Some provisions will not take effect until 2027 and 2028, meaning the full effects have yet to be felt.

The changes have drawn criticism from hunger advocates and state officials who warn the shift could strain state budgets and make it harder for families to access food assistance.

In a recent letter, the National Governors Association and other state and local organizations told Congress that the policy changes could throw hundreds of millions of dollars in costs onto states and risk destabilizing the program if lawmakers do not intervene.

During debate on an amendment from Rep. Jahana Hayes, D-Conn., that would have reversed the SNAP cuts, a proposal that ultimately failed, the committee’s top Democrat, Rep. Angie Craig of Minnesota, warned the longstanding farm bill coalition could be unraveling.

“We could be driving the last nail in the coffin of this coalition today,” Craig said. “For some of us, this is your first farm bill markup. For all of us, it could likely be our last, because by decimating the nutrition title in the farm bill, by splitting the food and farm programs apart as Republicans have done in this process, you have destroyed the farm bill coalition.”

Craig said a path forward for this committee’s bill would be fraught, calling it a “shell of a farm bill” that is “absolutely flawed” and “a missed opportunity” to address the economic pressures facing agriculture.

“It is going to have challenges getting broad bipartisan support on the House floor if it even makes it there,” Craig said during the markup. “My sincere hope is that this is just ‘act one’ of several acts.”

‘There is more work to be done’

The House Agriculture Committee’s farm bill proposal, titled the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026, closely resembles the legislation the panel advanced two years ago. 

That earlier bill never received a vote on the House floor, and the Senate Agriculture Committee has yet to advance its own farm bill framework.

Throughout the markup, House Agriculture Committee Chairman Glenn “GT” Thompson, R-Pa., urged lawmakers to support the measure. He repeatedly encouraged members to “not let the perfect be the enemy of the good” as they debated amendments to the bill’s 12 titles covering farm supports, conservation, trade, rural development and nutrition.

“I am proud of this bill and the work we have done to further improve it. There is more work to be done,” Thompson said at the conclusion of the markup, which he called a “long slog.” 

Thompson has said he has met with House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., about bringing the measure to the House floor. 

But the legislation will likely need some Democratic support, particularly to move through the Senate, where votes to advance legislation like the farm bill typically require a 60-vote supermajority.

Senators, farm interests

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., the top Democrat on the Senate Agriculture Committee, said during a hearing March 10 that she hopes lawmakers can craft a bipartisan farm bill that addresses the needs of both farmers and families who rely on SNAP.

“I am hoping we can get to a better place. I hope as we look at a farm bill, that we include some corrections to what happened last summer,” Klobuchar said, referencing the “big beautiful” law.

For his part, U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Chairman John Boozman, R-Ark., said he appreciated the House effort to advance the farm bill and indicated he may want to go in a similar direction.

“This builds off the historic investments we made in the Working Families Tax Cuts to strengthen the farm safety net and provide producers with greater certainty while demonstrating unwavering support for strengthening rural communities and safeguarding our food supply,” Boozman said in a statement. 

Farm groups are watching closely, hoping a five-year farm bill will provide some certainty farmers have lacked in recent years.

American Farm Bureau Federation President Zippy Duvall called on Congress to “finish the job and deliver a modern farm bill” and urged farmers to contact lawmakers and encourage them to advance the legislation. The Farm Bureau has 5 million members.

The National Farmers Union, which represents about 220,000 family farmers and ranchers, said it is grateful for progress on the farm bill but offered a more cautious response.

“We remain concerned that this proposal does not yet meet the scale of the crisis facing family farmers and ranchers,” NFU President Rob Larew said in a statement. “The path from committee to a final, signed farm bill is long. NFU will continue working with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle to strengthen this legislation.”

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.

I have visited many after-school and summer programs across Wisconsin, from large urban sites to small rural schools, and what I’ve seen has stayed with me. I’ve watched students immersed in creative writing, acting and robotics. I’ve observed staff working one-on-one with kids navigating intense emotional challenges. And I’ve seen the smiles on middle schoolers’ faces as they reconnect with trusted mentors at the end of the school day. These programs are not “extras”; they provide crucial support to kids, families, and entire communities.

The access gap

And yet, for far too many Wisconsin families, these opportunities remain out of reach. According to the latest America After 3PM report, nearly 275,000 Wisconsin children who would participate in after-school programs are not enrolled because none are available. Four in five children who could benefit from these supports are missing out. Parents cite cost, lack of transportation, and a simple lack of local programming as the biggest barriers.

The benefits are clear

The impact of these programs is undeniable. Parents overwhelmingly rate their children’s after-school programs as excellent or very good, reporting that they keep kids safe, build social skills, and support mental wellness. Research in Wisconsin shows that students who participate in extracurricular activities are less likely to report anxiety or depression and more likely to feel a sense of belonging.

Out-of-school time programs often provide the space for deep, long-term mentoring, a powerful protective factor in a young person’s life. While teachers are often stretched thin during the academic day, out-of-school time  staff can focus on the relational side of development.

The cost of instability

When funding is unstable, it undermines the very connections that make these programs transformative. Recently, a Boys & Girls Club director shared the human cost of budget constraints: they were forced to reduce a veteran staff member to part-time. This didn’t just trim a budget; it severed a multi-year mentorship. When that bond was broken, several youths stopped attending entirely.

Wisconsin lags behind national trends

Across the country, after-school and summer programs are increasingly viewed as essential to youth development. Twenty-seven states provide dedicated state funding for these programs; Wisconsin provides none. States as different as Alabama and Texas recognize that federal funding alone is not enough. So do our  Midwestern neighbors.

• Minnesota and Illinois have invested in these programs for years.
• Michigan established a $73 million grant program to expand before-school, after-school, and summer learning statewide.
• Pennsylvania created the $11.5 million Building Opportunity through Out-of-School Time (BOOST) program.

The opportunity to act

Public support for these programs is strong and bipartisan. Families across Wisconsin want safe, enriching opportunities for their children. With a significant budget surplus, Wisconsin is uniquely positioned to invest in its future.

State leaders should view out-of-school programming as a foundation for safety, mental health, and long-term economic opportunity. We have the resources; now we need the will. By committing to consistent state funding, we can ensure that every young person in Wisconsin has a place to belong when the school bell rings.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

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.