Wisconsin landscape | Photo by Greg Conniff for Wisconsin Examiner

President Donald Trump’s tariffs are becoming a major drain on Wisconsin’s agricultural economy. China stopped purchasing U.S. soybeans amid a new trade war this spring, triggering a price collapse and leaving farmers wondering what to do with the bumper crop they are now harvesting. Cranberry growers say they’re facing low prices and market uncertainty, too, as other countries turn away their products because of tariffs. 

Small wonder the latest ag economy barometer published by Purdue University on Oct. 7 found that nationwide farmers say their economic condition is weakening. Despite expected record-high corn and soybean yields, farmers report they expect weaker financial performance in 2025 than in 2024 and have a weaker capital investment outlook.

Yet even as optimism about the farm economy is fading, support for Trump among farmers remains strong.

Back in March, 70% of farmers who answered the Purdue survey said they believed tariffs would strengthen the agricultural economy in the long run. That number dropped steeply to 51% by September. Still a large majority — 71% – continue to believe the country as a whole is moving in the right direction, and 80% believe the Trump administration is likely or very likely to give them an aid package to compensate for the damage done by tariffs and trade wars.  

U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany (R-Wisconsin) reinforced this hope on the WRDN radio podcast from the World Dairy Expo in Madison last week. Tiffany, who is running for governor, was asked what he says to farmers who are “fed up” with Trump’s tariffs. He replied that Trump tariffs are not going away, but, he said of the administration, “they’re gonna use some of that tariff revenue, which is significant, to help farmers out. Because they know, I mean, President Trump has no better friends than the farmers of America.” 

Trump has suggested he will unveil another farm bailout as he did during his first administration, when China responded to steep tariffs by scaling back purchases of U.S. agricultural products. 

The problem with the bailout solution, says Gbenga Ajilore, chief economist at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and former senior adviser for rural development at USDA, is that the revenue generated by tariffs that Trump proposes to convert into handouts to farmers comes directly from the farmers themselves.  

“It’s not even like robbing Peter to pay Paul. It’s like robbing Peter to pay Peter,” Ajilore said in a phone interview Wednesday. “What’s happening is that there are tariffs on a lot of goods — looking at steel, aluminum, looking at fertilizers. So farmers are paying more for their inputs. We’re seeing this impacting these companies like Caterpillar, John Deere. And so you can say there’s a lot of revenue, but it’s coming out of the pockets of consumers, businesses and farmers.” 

If farmers are not already feeling seasick as the Trump administration spins the ag economy around on a cycle of tariffs and bailouts, the administration’s immigration crackdown is also making them queasy. 

A panel discussion at last week’s World Dairy Expo focused on a labor shortage made worse by a Trump administration that seems hell-bent on deporting the agricultural workforce.

The recent ICE action that scooped up 24 dairy workers in Manitowoc, most of whom had no criminal records, and deportations of entire crews of legally present H2A workers in Texas had farmers who attended the discussion worried.

“Taking hard-working employees off farms does not make communities safer,” said Brain Rexing, a dairy farmer from Indiana. He described the Hispanic workers on his farm as “way more than employees. — they work together with me and my family side to side.”

Like other farmers, he said, he goes to bed at night worrying about his workers and wakes up in the morning worrying about them. Instead of threatening farmworkers with deportation, Rexing and other farmers at the Expo said, Congress should finally get around to creating a year-round visa that recognizes their essential contributions to the U.S. economy. 

U.S. Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-Wisconsin) spoke to the group and assured them that the Trump administration has their back. He had personally spoken with Elon Musk he said. “I was like, hey, Elon, there’s two groups of people in the United States that we need to really watch out for. One of them are service members and veterans, because they gave us our freedom and keep us free. And the second one are our farmers, because they feed us. .. So he really zoned in on that and grasped it,” Van Orden said. 

Another “incredibly, incredibly strong proponent of the dairy industry,” he added, “is Tom Homan.”  Homan is Trump’s border czar and the architect of the family separation policy during the first Trump administration. “He was raised on a dairy farm,” Van Orden said. “So keep that in mind. There are some people in D.C. that understand what’s going on. We’re trying our best to help you. So I would just ask that you stay in the business and that God will bless you.”

It was not the most reassuring speech. But Van Orden also asked the dairy farmers in the room to support his proposal for a new system to make their workforce legal, which would impose a fine on employers and dairy workers and then require the workers to self-deport before returning to the country under a new federal program that would allow them to do their jobs legally. He introduced the bill in July and it was referred to the House Agriculture Committee, of which he is a member. 

The farmers, understandably, had a lot of questions.

What was their workers’ incentive to participate? How long would it take the government to process their paperwork, remove them from the country and let them back in again? How do they know they won’t be deported as soon as they come back? 

These are reasonable fears, given the terrifying scenes of ICE grabbing people off the street, busting down doors and zip-tying parents and children, sweeping up people with and without legal authorization to be in the country, whether or not they have committed any crime.

Recently, even the Trump administration’s Labor Department declared that the nation’s food system faces an emergency due to the administration’s aggressive mass deportation program, warning in a federal filing uncovered by the American Prospect that the immigration crackdown on agricultural workers has created a significant “risk of supply shock-induced food shortages.” 

“The Department does not believe American workers currently unemployed or marginally employed will make themselves readily available in sufficient numbers to replace large numbers of aliens,” the filing states, contradicting Trump administration rhetoric about immigrants stealing American jobs.

The solution proposed by Trump’s labor department is to pay H2A seasonal agricultural workers even less — offsetting the cost to employers of a terrified workforce that is disinclined to show up to work after ICE raids.

It seems like a weird solution, as David Dayen of the American Prospect observed, “since cutting wages across the sector will likely drive existing workers to look elsewhere for jobs.”

But there is a dark logic behind the move to slash wages for agricultural workers in the midst of the moral panic over immigration. Dayen quotes Antonio De Loera-Brust of the United Farm Workers, who sees a government threatening mass deportations working hand in glove with employers who benefit from a powerless immigrant workforce. 

“We call it the ‘Deport and Replace’ strategy,” De Loera-Brust said, “which is defined above all to make it easier for corporate agribusiness to exploit its workers, whether terrified undocumented residents or an unlimited pool of cheap foreign guest workers … The Trump administration would rather expand the abusive H-2A program than do right by the workers who are already here, feeding America for decades.”

This situation does not directly apply to Wisconsin dairy farms, since dairy workers are not eligible for H2A visas. But it was not at all clear from Van Orden’s remarks at the World Dairy Expo that he understands that fact. 

“The H2A program is broken and it sucks. There you go. That’s the whole press conference,” he said after he was introduced. Later, he referred to “all this garbage you’ve been dealing with, these H2As and H2Bs” insisting his own proposal for a new visa system would work better. In fact, dairy farmers are not dealing with the H2A (seasonal) or H2B (non-agricultural) visa systems at all.

Van Orden did acknowledge the difficult situation for the dairy industry, which depends on a labor force 60% to 90% of which is made up of immigrants who lack any sort of legal authorization to be in the country, since there is no such thing as a year-round visa for low-skilled work.

“Rocks are heavy. Trees are made of wood. Gravity is real. If we deport every single person that is working in the agriculture industry, the hospitality industry and the construction industry, all of those industries will shutter in a moment’s notice,” Van Orden declared.

But it’s unclear if his plan, the Agricultural Workforce Reform Act of 2025, will help.

One farmer asked if his workers would be barred from returning to the U.S. if they committed a traffic violation (a common concern in Wisconsin, where immigrants without legal papers cannot get a driver’s license). Van Orden fobbed him off, saying that would be a question for the executive branch to resolve through its rule-making process.

Several farmers listening to Van Orden affirmed that they supported Trump’s goal of securing the border, but added that they thought that mission had been accomplished. Now they hoped the administration would turn its attention to a new public safety issue — the threat mass deportations pose to the U.S. food supply.  

Farmers across the country seem inclined to give the Trump administration the benefit of the doubt. But the doubt is growing. 

“Farmers are getting it in so many ways; their exports are down, their costs are up, and they’re losing their workforce,” said Ajilore, the former USDA economist. Given all that, farmer sentiment “actually hasn’t really moved as much as you would expect, given what’s happening,” he said. He attributes it to a wait-and-see attitude among farmers who have faithfully supported Trump for years. But now, he added, “the impact is starting to really hit home.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The front entrance of the E. Barrett Prettyman U.S. Courthouse in Washington, D.C., on Aug. 3, 2023. (Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — Judges on a federal appeals court panel seemed skeptical that the Trump administration’s expanded use of a fast-track deportation procedure didn’t violate the due-process rights of immigrants during oral arguments Monday.

The hearing before judges Patricia A. Millett, Neomi Rao and J. Michelle Childs of the D.C. Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals comes after a lower court struck down the expedited removal policy used to bypass judicial review in the quick removals of migrants far from the southern border. The expanded policy is a pillar in the Trump administration’s mass deportation campaign. 

“This is a critical tool of immigration enforcement,” U.S. Department of Justice attorney Drew Ensign said. “This is not a small deal. The ability to conduct expedited removal is one of the executive’s most important tools for maintaining border control and not being overwhelmed.”

For decades, presidential administrations have applied expedited removal to immigrants apprehended at the southern border who cannot prove they have remained in the country for more than two years. If they cannot produce that proof, those immigrants are then subject to deportation without appearing before an immigration judge.

In January, the Trump administration expanded expedited removal to apply nationwide, rather than only within 100 miles of the southern border.

Childs said the Trump administration can still use expedited removal, along with other enforcement tools, for its immigration policy.

“So what are you losing, other than (applying expedited removal to) millions of other people, to go inward into the U.S.?” Childs asked.

Former President Barack Obama appointed Millett, former President Joe Biden appointed Childs, and President Donald Trump appointed Rao in his first term.

Policy lacks procedure

Arguing on behalf of the immigration advocacy group that brought the suit, Make the Road New York, attorney Anand Balakrishnan said the new policy “brings to bear against this new class of people an entire system of expedited removal that is not procedurally adequate.”

The judges also questioned the legality of the Trump administration’s expanded use of expedited removal. 

Ensign argued that the Trump administration doesn’t believe the expansion violates due-process rights because those affected are not U.S. citizens.

“It has been well-established that aliens who are not lawfully admitted into the country are only entitled to whatever procedures the political branches provide, and that the plaintiffs cannot rely on the due-process clause to impose additional procedural requirements,” Ensign said.

Balakrishnan said that when the Trump administration expanded the use of the policy in January, there were no new procedures put in place, meaning immigrants wanting to challenge their removal under the new policy would have no way to do so.

“The procedures that have been on the books, in some cases are not tailored for this radically new class to which it’s being applied, and in other cases, are insufficient to deal with the unique challenges placed by them and the liberty interests of this new group,” Balakrishnan said. 

DACA supporters rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court in 2019. (Photo by Robin Bravender/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — Advocates Thursday raised alarm over immigrants with special deportation protections facing detainment across the country, as the Trump administration continues its aggressive mass deportation campaign. 

Home is Here, a coalition of advocates for immigrants with Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, status, has documented a pattern of immigration agents targeting DACA recipients. At least 18 DACA recipients are detained, according to a Home is Here tracker. 

So far, Home is Here has pinpointed DACA recipients detained in Alabama,  Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Texas, New Mexico, New York, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Rhode Island and Virginia.

The immigrant advocates were joined at a press conference by congressional Democrats and family members of DACA recipients currently detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The lawmakers included Sens. Dick Durbin of Illinois and Alex Padilla of Carlifornia and Reps. Sylvia Garcia of Texas and Delia Ramirez of Illinois. 

“The Trump administration is killing DACA piece by piece,” Garcia said. 

DACA tied up in court

The Trump administration tried to end DACA during President Donald Trump’s first term, but the Supreme Court blocked the effort. Republican-led states have challenged the legality of DACA and its fate is tied up in an appeals court.

There are roughly 550,000 DACA recipients, a program created under the Obama administration for undocumented children brought into the country without legal authorization by their parents. 

DACA allows that group to be shielded from deportation and obtain work authorizations and driver’s licenses. DACA recipients have to reapply every two years for a renewal fee of $520 and pass a background check.

Ramirez said the Trump administration’s aggressive mass deportation campaign is indiscriminately targeting immigrants and has instilled fear in Latino communities. 

“The whole (Trump) administration are waging a campaign of terror against our neighbors, against our own families, against our loved ones as they advance their fascist agenda and they try to cast immigrants as a public enemy,” said Ramirez, who is married to a DACA recipient and is the daughter of Guatemalan immigrants. 

The Democrats said they would continue to speak out against the detention of DACA recipients and provide assistance in litigation for families. A handful of Democrats have sued ICE over blocked access to detention facilities to conduct oversight. 

An arrest, and detainment

The wife of a DACA recipient in ICE detention, Alejandra, who spoke at the press conference, said that she saw through a home security camera her husband, Paulo Cesar Gamez Lira, being arrested by masked men in the driveway of their Texas home.

Alejandra said their children were in the car and they could be heard screaming on the video. Her husband remains in detainment. The ACLU of New Mexico said in a statement he is 28 years old and the father of four U.S. citizen children.

“No family should ever have to endure that kind of terror,” she said. “For more than a decade, Paulo has been able to renew his status without issues. He has always followed the rules, done everything this country asked of him, and yet, under this administration, it feels like none of that matters anymore.”

(L-R) Adrien Wood, Aeriana Wood, and Juliana Wood have a picture taken by Michael Race in front of the Alligator Alcatraz sign at the entrance to the Dade-Collier Training and Transition Airport on July 10, 2025, in Ochopee. The site is the location of the state-managed immigration detention facility in the Florida Everglades that officials have named “Alligator Alcatraz.” (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

A federal appeals court last week ordered the “Alligator Alcatraz” detention center to remain open partially because it lacked federal ties. A week later, Florida formally applied for federal funds.

The state’s request for reimbursement for its spending on the migrant detention facility in the heart of the Everglades came just days after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit hit pause on a federal judge’s order shutting down the center over environmental concerns. The 2-1 vote claimed that federal environmental laws don’t apply because Florida officials haven’t used any federal money.

But less than eight days after the ruling — which stayed all aspects of the case — the Florida Division of Emergency Management asked the Federal Emergency Management Agency to be reimbursed, a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson told the Florida Phoenix in an email.

“The State of Florida submitted an application for reimbursement to [FEMA],” the spokesperson said. Although they didn’t comment on what day the application was made nor for how much money, this confirmed Politico’s reporting that FDEM’s executive director, Kevin Guthrie, said the state had applied for federal money.

Gov. Ron DeSantis has long promised that Florida would be reimbursed for its detention center spending, although neither his office nor FDEM ever clarified when they planned to ask for the money. Federal authorities similarly lauded the facility as a joint effort, but showed no signs of chipping in until last week.

“Under President Trump’s leadership, we are working at turbo speed on cost-effective and innovative ways to deliver on the American people’s mandate for mass deportations of criminal illegal aliens,” the DHS official said. “These new facilities are in large part to be funded by FEMA’s Shelter and Services Program.”

The Shelter and Services program allocated $608.4 million toward FEMA’s new Detention Support Grant Program, specifically designed to expedite Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s mass detention and deportation agenda. If FEMA approves Florida’s request, the money will be awarded by Sep. 30. The Everglades facility is estimated to cost around $450 million for the year.

The attorney general’s office redirected questions to FDEM, which did not respond to questions about the application’s timeline.

‘So what do you say, judges?’

In a 2-1 decision on Sep. 4, the Eleventh Circuit both paused federal trial judge Kathleen Williams’ order to shut down the facility and fully stayed the case. The lawsuit was brought against the state by the Miccosukee Tribe and environmental groups Friends of the Everglades and the Center for Biodiversity.

They claimed the center, located within the Everglades and Big Cypress National Preserve, was harming the environment and violating the National Environmental Policy Act.

But judges Barbara Lagoa and Elizabeth Branch, both Trump appointees, ruled that Williams had erred by applying the federal law to a center that had exclusively received state funds. Florida hadn’t even applied for federal reimbursement, they argued. The activists have since asked the appeals court to reconsider their decision to halt the lawsuit.

If the judges don’t, Miami attorney Joseph DeMaria said the plaintiffs would be stymied unless they can “un-stay” the case — even though the majority opinion was largely predicated on the lack of federal ties.

“Unless they can get the case unstuck, there’s nothing they can do,” said DeMaria, who once worked as a prosecutor with the Justice Department’s Miami Organized Crime Strike Force. [The state] played it cute by saying, ‘We haven’t formally agreed yet, so federal law doesn’t apply.'”

He posed a rhetorical question to the appellate judges on the case: “You said that the feds haven’t agreed to pay, so there’s no jurisdiction to enforce the federal environmental law, but then almost immediately after you said that, they went and agreed to pay. So what do you say, judges?”

Attorneys for the Friends of the Everglades declined to comment, while the governor’s office, the Miccosukee Tribe, and the Center for Biodiversity did not respond to requests for comment.

Minister of Justice and Public Security Héctor Villatoro, right, accompanies Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, center, during a tour of the Terrorist Confinement Center on March 26, 2025 in Tecoluca, El Salvador.  (Photo by Alex Brandon-Pool/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration paid El Salvador $4.76 million to detain up to 300 immigrant men for up to a year at a notorious mega-prison and barred the funds from being used to help asylum seekers, reproductive care or diversity initiatives, according to a court document filed Tuesday. 

It’s the first time the financial agreement has been made public after the White House initially said the deal amounted to $6 million. 

The payments were part of the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration crackdown and decision to invoke a wartime law to remove Venezuelan nationals. 

The four-page agreement between the United States and El Salvador verifies that the funds came out of the State Department’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law, which gives financial assistance to security forces and is subject to a human rights law known as the Leahy Law. 

That human rights law bars State’s financial support of “units of foreign security forces” — which can include military and law enforcement staff in prisons —  facing credible allegations of gross human rights violations. 

“The purpose of this grant is to provide funds to be used by the Salvadoran law enforcement and corrections agencies for its law enforcement needs, which includes costs associated with detaining the 238 TdA members recently deported to El Salvador,” according to the agreement.

Those who drafted the law raised concerns that those payments violated human rights laws, as more than 250 Venezuelan men were removed from the U.S. to the brutal prison, Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo, or CECOT, despite a federal judge’s order barring such action.

Congressional Democrats have asked Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the White House for a copy of the financial agreement for months, over concerns the funds were being used in violation of human rights. 

March flight to El Salvador

On March 15, the Trump administration sent 238 men to CECOT, after invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to apply to Venezuelan nationals 14 and older who are suspected members of the gang Tren de Aragua. 

The agreement, dated March 22, noted the men could be detained up to a year. 

It also bars any of the $4.76 million to be used to help asylum seekers seek legal counsel for the U.S. asylum process, for access to abortion, funds for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency that provides humanitarian assistance to Palestinians or for programs that promote diversity, equity and inclusion.

The men were released back to Venezuela as part of a prison swap in July, but they remained at CECOT for four months. Some of those detained, including Kilmar Abrego Garica, of Maryland, whose mistaken deportation captured national attention, detailed psychological and physical torture. 

No protection from torture

The document was obtained through a lawsuit by Democracy Forward, which specifically argued the financial agreement between El Salvador and the U.S. “was created without any legal basis.” 

“The correspondence between the U.S. State Department and El Salvador confirms what we have long suspected: the Trump-Vance administration did nothing to meaningfully ensure that individuals disappeared from the U.S. to El Salvador’s notorious CECOT prison were protected from torture, indefinite confinement, or other abuses,” Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, said in a statement. “The agreement did, however, go to lengths to ensure that the funds the U.S. provided to El Salvador not be used to provide reproductive health care or to assist asylum seekers in accessing resources and counsel.”  

That case is being overseen by District of Columbia Judge James Boasberg, who also ordered the Trump administration to turn around planes carrying men removed under the wartime law. Instead, the planes landed in El Salvador.